Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (WORKS ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

STIRLING COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dundee Corporation.

To be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION SUPPLY

BAC3-11 and European Airbus

1 and 2. Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) if he will make a statement on the BAC3-11 proposals;
(2) if he will make a statement on the European Airbus.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he will announce a decision on the development of the BAC3-11 and of the Rolls Royce RB211/61 engine to power it; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to an airbus for Europe.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions he has had about Government grants towards the production of the BAC3-11 and European Airbus; if he will publish the relevant figures; and if he will make a statement.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement on the BAC3-11.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what proposals he has received from European Governments regarding British participation in the European Airbus project; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the European airbus.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a further statement on the BAC3-11 project.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions have taken place with British industry regarding the BAC3-11 and European


Air Bus proposals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) if he will make a further statement on the future of the BAC3-11.
(2) what decision he has now reached on the European airbus.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Airbus project; and to what extent this will involve Rolls-Royce Limited.

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the future of the BAC3-11 and on the effect he estimates it will have on the financial position of Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what decision he has taken in connection with the Rolls-Royce proposal to develop an engine for the BAC3-11.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): As I told the House on 9th November in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), the Government are studying both the BAC3-11 and the A300B.
The invitation from the French, German and Dutch Governments to participate in the A300B project was received less than four weeks ago and it has been necessary to clarify some important aspects of their proposals. This is being done urgently—there have been two Ministerial meetings and further talks between officials of the four Governments will take place later this week—but I should prefer not to promise a firm date for the Government's decision on either project. I am very conscious of the length of time that BAC has had to wait.
Our decision will, of course, embrace the request from Rolls-Royce for launching aid for the RB211–61 engine which could power either aircraft. As I told the House last Wednesday, this is a separate matter from the decision to contribute additional launching aid to complete the RB211–22.—[Vol. 806, c. 35 and 398–407.]

Mr. Marten: First, does the Minister realise that the whole House would, I am sure, like him to go for the British aircraft? Can he say whether the proposition that there might be American engines in this British airframe is being considered? Secondly, can he confirm that the French have put in another proposal subsequent to that which he mentioned from the Europeans? May we be assured that he will not use the European Airbus as a lever to crawl into the Common Market?

Mr. Corfield: First, proposals to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend have been put forward by the Company and they are being urgently examined. Secondly, I am sure that none of my right hon. Friends has any intention of crawling into the Common Market, and this will not be used as a lever to that effect.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more worthy projects in the aerospace industry have been killed since the war by indecision than by almost any other reason and that the BAC3-11 would produce a £720 million profit to the balance of payments between 1975 and 1983? Is he further aware that in the last 20 years £1,025,000 on average in Government aid per annum to B.A.C. has produced a profit to the balance of payments of £40 million annually on civil aircraft?

Mr. Corfield: I have used most of those arguments myself on one occasion or another, but I do not entirely agree with the profit figures which my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Minister beat in mind that the BAC3-11 is already about a year behind the A300B and that therefore a decision is urgent? Will he undertake to make sure that a decision is made on commercial grounds and is not influenced by political considerations?

Mr. Corfield: As I indicated in my Answer, I appreciate that B.A.C. has had to wait a long time and I appreciate the need for urgency. Nevertheless, these proposals were such that it would not have been right to ignore them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a principal potential customer for the BAC3-11, namely, British European Airways, has


already voiced its views through its Chairman, Sir Anthony Milward, who has strongly urged the Government to buy British, which is obviously the opinion of most informed people in this matter? Secondly, will he ensure that this magnificent aircraft is not cast away as the TSR2 was before it?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that there is any comparison between this aircraft, which has not reached the stage of cutting metal, and the TSR2. I do not think that any of us could fail to be aware of the stridently expressed views of the Chairman of B.E.A.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that the British Aircraft Corporation is not coterminous with the British aircraft industry and that a private firm, Hawker Siddeley, has invested very large sums of its own money in the European project? Will he also say what is the difference between an all-British aircraft with an American engine and, as I understand it, a Yugoslav undercarriage and a Roumanian tailplane, and a European aircraft with British wings?

Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that all those matters have been, and are being, taken into consideration.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before making any decision to go ahead with the airbus project, attention will be paid to the need for complete control over these multinational projects—the kind of control which has been lacking in the past but which is quite essential if a project is ever to be a success?

Mr. Corfield: I very much appreciate those sentiments, but I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that while complete control is something at which successive Governments have been aiming, it is not all that easy to work out a system which is foolproof. Progress is, however, being made and I believe that the Panavia set-up for the M.R.C.A. is a considerable advance on previous organisations.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the whole cost of the BAC3-11 project so far has been borne by B.A.C. and that it has been, and still is, considerable? Will he remind the

House how many jobs are in prospect it the BAC3-11 goes ahead?

Mr. Corfield: I cannot give the exact number. There are a very large number of claims that very large numbers of jobs will eventuate from a go-ahead for the 3–11. We have, however, to bear in mind that Hawker Siddeley has financed its contribution from its resources.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister accept that many right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, are anxious about this matter? Is he aware that both sides have been subjected to a tremendous amount of propaganda? To allow simple souls like myself to make an assessment, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake at least to try to produce a neutral report from which we can make an assessment?

Mr. Corfield: That, of course, is my endeavour in producing a report to my colleagues, but I assure the hon. Member that as the Member for Filton, I, too, am well aware of the pressures.

Mr. Rankin: In coming to a decision, will the Minister bear in mind that the return on investment, the aid that would be given to our balance of payments and the industrial return would be far greater from the British project than from the airbus?

Mr. Corfield: All those factors are, of course, relevant.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this indecision is worrying and unsettling to the people who work in the industry? In my constituency in Derby, there are reports daily of wholesale redundancies at Rolls-Royce. When will the Government make up their mind on this important issue?

Mr. Corfield: I fully appreciate those anxieties, but it is essential, in the interests of the country, that we look carefully at the proposals which have been made to us rather than make a precipitate decision.

Mr. Edelman: What would be the effect on the balance of payments if the B.A.C. were to buy the General Electric CF6—50 instead of the Rolls-Royce engine?

Mr. Corfield: It depends a good deal on the aeroplane into which one puts the engine. If it were to go into the BAC3-11, the effect on the balance of payments would be in no way unfavourable. If it were to be bought in the Lockheed 1011, again the effect would not be unfavourable, but it would not be as favourable. If it were to be used in the A300B, there would be some gain to our balance of payments, but this would be the third choice from that standpoint.

Mr. Barnett: Will the Minister at least assure the House that he will present to us the figures on which he will base his decision, so that the House can decide whether that decision is the right one?

Mr. Corfield: If I were to do that, I should be abrogating the function of government, which is to make these decisions. When the decision is made, however, I promise the House that I will be as informative as I possibly can within the overall necessity of considering the public interest.

Sir R. Thompson: In considering the pros and cons of this decision, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the immense value of the sub-contracted work that would flow to British industry from a decision in favour of the B.A.C.? Will he bear this particularly in mind, reflecting that at least two of these firms are in my constituency?

Mr. Corfield: I will certainly bear that in mind, including the latter part of my hon. Friend's comment.

Mr. William Rodgers: In view of the Minister's rather sharp remark about the views of Sir Anthony Milward, may we take it that B.E.A. will be free to choose the aircraft that it prefers if the 3–11 does not go ahead? Secondly, even if the Minister is not prepared, as I think he should be, to place the full facts before the House before making the decision, may we have a White Paper afterwards in which the matter is fully explained and all the details are given?

Mr. Corfield: I certainly was not intending to be sharp to Sir Anthony Milward, for whom I have a great regard. He has, however, made his views abund-

antly clear and one can hardly fail to be aware of them. As to the decision, the hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate that it must be a Government decision. I undertake, as I have said, to be as informative as possible within the confines of what the national interest demands.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Among the welter of conflicting advice, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, historically, an aeroplane the performance of which is optimised to suit the B.E.A. requirement does not meet a world requirement of sufficient size to sell enough aircraft to break even? Historically, this is an accurate statement.

Mr. Corfield: I accept that, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to the project.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister note that some of us who have had responsibility for civil aviation believe that there is a most powerful case for the 3–11 on both technical and commercial grounds which has been further strengthened by the export success of the BAC1-11 during the last three years?

Mr. Corfield: I am well aware of both the opinions that the right hon. Gentleman expresses and the facts relating thereto.

Mr. Adley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the commercial success of either the 3–11 or the airbus depends in large degree upon the extent to which either aircraft can be sold to North American civil airlines? Would he not agree that B.A.C.'s sales record is outstanding in this direction, as it has sold more than seven times more aircraft in North America than any other European aircraft manufacturer since the war?

Mr. Corfield: Yes. Again, that is a factor that will be considered.

Concorde

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the progress and future prospects of the Concorde airliner.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will give the current estimate of research and development


costs of Concorde; and if he will make a statement.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on Concorde.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde project.

Mr. Corfield: The two Concorde prototypes have now completed 310 hours of flight testing and both have flown at Concorde's cruising speed of Mach 2. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating all concerned on reaching this important milestone in the programme. As regards development costs, I have nothing to add to my statement on 28th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 193–6.]

Mr. Cronin: When will the Minister be in a position to make a statement on the prospects of commercial success of the Concorde? Will he give the House a firm assurance that if there are indications that the Concorde will be a commercial success, the project will not be cut in the search for economies?

Mr. Corfield: In reply to the first part of his question, I can only refer the hon. Member to what I have already said, namely, that I expect that the greater part of the tests will be completed by the middle of next month. I shall then have talks with my French opposite number, but I do not expect that the evaluation of the tests can be completed to the extent that is necessary to expect firm orders to eventuate until about March.

Mr. Barnett: Will the Minister confirm that all past estimates have been fantastically unreliable? Can he assure the House in any way that the present figures are not likely to reach, say, at least £1,000 million? If he cannot assure us of that, can he, in the circumstances, at least tell the House that it will not be a commercial proposition in any way? If so, why is he going ahead with the project.

Mr. Corfield: I think the hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of hypotheses on which I would not be prepared to give even a hypothetical answer.

Sir G. Nabarro: While dissociating myself entirely from the last question—that this aircraft is unlikely to be a commercial proposition in the future—may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would not give some satisfaction to the House, and a crumb of comfort to me in all the questions that I have asked him, as to the maximum financial commitment over and above the £800 million already committed by the taxpayers of this country to this aircraft?

Mr. Corfield: The estimate I have already given is the best estimate that can at present be given as to the cost of completing this aircraft. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is not a very good estimate, but about 40 per cent. of the increased cost is due to increases in the cost of the raw materials for which his right hon. Friends had more responsibility than anybody else. That is a fact. I should be delighted to give my hon. Friend crumbs of comfort, but I am sure that he will appreciate that it is quite impossible for me to put my hand on my heart and give a guarantee on anything.

Mr. Sheldon: Since there is no likelihood of this being a commercial success and it obviously is a commercial loss of a very high order indeed—[Interruption.]—that has been stated by the Minister himself—can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £825 million is likely to be recouped, how much is likely to be lost, and when he will draw this billion pound folly to an end?

Mr. Corfield: As I think my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said many months ago, it is quite clear that this stage would be the worst possible stage at which to think of cancelling this project. [An HON. MEMBER: "A referendum?"] I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had a referendum in his constituency the answer would be overwhelmingly in favour of the project.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the estimates are based on the assumption of supersonic flights over land being banned and make an early statement on that aspect?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, Yes; as to the second part, this is the


responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the current arrangements with the French on forward expenditure last? That is to say, when is he expecting that, after evaluation of the tests and orders have come in, he will be in a position to decide whether a full production programme may go ahead and by what date?

Mr. Corfield: I expect that it will be some time towards the end of March, but it may be necessary to take a limited decision in the middle of next month in regard to a certain amount of the early parts of the production programme which the right hon. Gentleman himself originally authorised.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what representations he has received from the Anti-Concorde Society about damage attributable to supersonic testing of aircraft; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Corfield: I have in my present capacity received no such representations, although, of course, I am very well aware of the views of those supporting the Anti-Concorde Project.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the very great damage to the morale of those, in his constituency, mine and others, who work in the aircraft industry and who are not helped at all by the frequent pronouncements of this politically motivated organisation? Is he aware that if a pro-Concorde society were formed it would have a very different and larger membership?

Mr. Corfield: While I accept the latter part of my hon Friend's remarks, I am bound to say that when I read the voluminous reports from this society when I was in Opposition I came to the conclusion that these were people who were best at spoiling their own case.

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if, in view of the further escalation of costs, he will now withdraw from the Concorde programme.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.

Mr. Brown: While I appreciate that the Minister would want to get the best out of the trial flights, may I ask him whether he would assure the House that once he gets evaluation from the trial flights he will consider suspending the programme? Does he, with hand on heart, believe that the nation can afford the luxury of Concorde at the expense of welfare milk, school milk, and increased prescription charges for the registered disabled?

Mr. Corfield: I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the crux is the commercial factor rather than only the technical, because all the signs are that the technical tests will be successful, and it is then that we shall be able to judge the number of orders and, therefore, the aircraft's commercial viability.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commercial success of Concorde to a large degree depends on confidence in the project, and that questions such as that just asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) do nothing but harm at this stage?

Mr. William Rodgers: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the commercial success will be measured in terms of planes sold, and can he, therefore, say what the anticipated price of Concorde will be and what proportion of that price will be attributable to development costs?

Mr. Corfield: That is one of the factors which I am proposing to discuss next month with M. Mondon.

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what are his plans for recouping the expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom in the Concorde project.

Mr. Corfield: We aim to recover a part of the development costs through a levy on sales.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister, then, conceding that it just is not possible ever to recoup the huge capital outlay by the taxpayers of this country on this wasteful project?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I think that that has been the bipartisan approach for many months.

Mr. Marten: Is that true if one takes the stretched Concorde into account and if sales of them go very well—if there is no American supersonic aircraft?

Mr. Corfield: I think that this is moving into the realms of hypothesis on which it would not be wise to base a commercial or financial decision. On present expectations it is wise to recognise that we shall not recoup a large part of the development costs.

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the future of the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.

Mr. Corfield: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence stated in reply to a Question on 28th October, the first major development phase is now proceeding on a tripartite basis.—[Vol. 805, c. 140–1.]

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the range of the MRCA is considerably less than that of the TSR2, and, now that British forces are to remain east of Suez, that there is considerable anxiety whether this aircraft will have the range to be of effective use in oceanic areas of the world?

Mr. Corfield: It is, of course, true that the range is less than that of TSR2, but it is designed for a different rôle, and I do not think it follows that, because there is to be a limited presence east of Suez, that makes this aircraft an undesirable one with which to proceed.

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how aircraft equipment will be selected for the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Corfield: Aircraft equipment for the MRCA will be selected by agreement between governmental representatives and the aircraft prime contractor, Panavia, after a process of competitive tendering has taken place.

Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the terms of the programme permit American equipment companies to bid into the programme on equal terms with British companies, whereas British companies have no such privilege in the United States? I hope that under

this programme he will see his way to negotiating an offset agreement with the United States.

Mr. Corfield: If a significant part of either the equipment or the avionics should go to a United States contractor, I will closely bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Strike-Trainer Aircraft

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement about the proposed new strike-trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Corfield: At my Department's request the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation have submitted proposals for meeting this requirement. Information is also being obtained on the Alpha Jet which is being developed jointly in France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no intention of seeing this country join the Europeans in the Alpha Jet project? It is about time that we had an aircraft which has British design leadership in it and, therefore, a British submission should be accepted.

Mr. Corfield: I am very hopeful that one or other of the British aircraft companies' proposals—and both companies are putting them forward—will be in every respect acceptable, but it would be wrong not to look at any proposition in regard to the Alpha Jet at the same time.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is very clear evidence that the capacity of design and management of this project on the part of the Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, is already grossly overstretched?

Mr. Corfield: I think there may be something in what my hon. Friend says, but one must bear in mind that this is relatively a simple aircraft.

Beagle Aircraft Company

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on progress with the liquidation of the Beagle Aircraft Company.

Mr. Corfield: The liquidation is progessing satisfactorily. A considerable part of the company's assets has been sold and a majority of creditor's claims have been settled. The Rearsby factory has been closed down and the Liquidator is currently negotiating the disposal of the remaining assets at Shoreham.

Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much public money has been lost, and can he specifically say what is to become of the Royal Swedish Airforce Bulldog order?

Mr. Corfield: I am not in a position to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question as yet, because this will depend on the price at which the remaining assets are sold. As to the Swedish order for Bulldogs and for product support of other Beagle aircraft, I am glad to say that it has been possible to dispose of these liabilities to Scottish Aviation, and I hope that this support ensures that we shall very much reduce possible claims for breach of contract which otherwise might have had to be levied against the company.

Royal Aircraft Establishment

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

Mr. Corfield: On 20th October the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and its outstations became part of the Ministry of Aviation Supply. My hon. Friend will be aware that the future of the whole range of responsibilities of my Ministry is at present under review. I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 27 of Cmnd. 4506 on the Reorganisation of Central Government.

Mr. Warren: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the current Royal Aircraft Establishment research programme will be scrutinised to see whether it contains any work which should be transferred to industry as the user.

Mr. Corfield: This question and other questions are subject to review almost continuously, but I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have not had a great deal of time to go into that matter in detail.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, when the review of the work of his Department is completed, it is contemplated that Farnborough, which has a high proportion of civil work, might be transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which would be most undesirable?

Mr. Corfield: This is one of the principal problems that will be the subject of review. It would be quite wrong of me to try to prejudge the result.

Space Vehicles and Shuttles

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what Government funding has been provided for design studies into lifting bodies and re-usable space vehicles and shuttles in the past six years.

Mr. Corfield: About £200,000.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the advanced project team of B.A.C. Warton patented its MUSTARD project as far back as 1964, and now that American Rockwell is entering into collaboration with B.A.C. on such projects, a valuable lead and the great potential for the 1980s and beyond could be lost?

Mr. Corfield: I am not sure whether that has any direct connection with the Question asked by my hon. Friend. I am aware of the fact, and further contracts are being negotiated both with B.A.C. and Hawker-Siddeley in relation to the £200,000 we have contributed to the European space effort.

Rolls-Royce Limited

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what advice his Department has given to Messrs. Rolls-Royce Limited in connection with its technical and financial management.

Mr. Corfield: My Department has kept in continuous close touch with the company and has endorsed its proposals to strengthen its technical and financial management.

Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what time he first became aware of the form of the financial and technical difficulties from which Rolls-Royce was suffering? Were they all concerned with the development of the


RB211, or were they also concerned with overloading the company with projects which it was incapable of supporting?

Mr. Corfield: As far as I recollect, the first time I became aware of this was on 20th August, but the previous Administration had warning lights about a year ago, as a result of which the then Minister of Technology asked the I.R.C. to intervene. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are commissioning a firm of accountants to give accounting advice. The troubles are almost exclusively tied to the development of the RB211–22. That is all I can say at the moment, but I will keep the House informed.

Mr. Nott: Would it not be normal to ask accountants to investigate a company before money is invested in it rather than after, and what, precisely, will Cooper Bros. be doing?

Mr. Corfield: As a counsel of perfection, I would entirely accept my hon. Friend's advice, but at this stage of the development of the engine the contractual situation is such that time did not allow for that exercise. The accountants are to give us a final—we hope—check on the figures, which have varied from time to time and have given us cause to believe that an outside check would be valuable.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

Pavements

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to give directions to local highway authorities concerning the repair and upkeep of pavements; and if he will exercise such powers.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir. Highway authorities already have a statutory duty to maintain pavements.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable number of accidents suffered by pedestrians, particularly by elderly people, which are caused by defective pavements? Will he take steps to encourage or enable local

authorities to devote more resources to the repair of pavements?

Mr. Page: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961, put the ordinary road user in a better position in relation to accidents on the pavements. We have recently received the Marshall Report on the maintenance of highways, and this contains valuable recommendations to highway authorities on the maintenance of footpaths and roads. We are studying the report to see how it can be implemented.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend noted a judgment which was given last week and which seemed to imply that it was satisfactory for pavements to be inspected once every three months? Will my hon. Friend say what is the position when it is reported to a local authority that a pavement is in a dangerous condition?

Mr. Page: I think that my hon. Friend is simplifying the decision in that case, but I do not wish to act as a court of appeal.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Local Government

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman for local government.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I am considering this, in consultation with the local authority associations.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that he will pursue the policy, which was advocated in the last Government's White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation, of establishing a local government Ombudsman? There are many people in need of such a service. When can we expect a White Paper announcing the Government's intentions on the future of local government?

Mr. Walker: The latter half of the supplementary question is an entirely different question. This is a matter with which we are progressing as speedily as possible. I cannot give a definite date at the moment. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I am


sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience as Minister, will agree that before coming to final conclusions on what should be done in this sphere, there should be proper consultation with local authorities.

Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he has received from the Parliamentary Commissioner on this point?

Mr. Walker: As far as I know, none, Sir.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. Gentleman in his consultations with local authorities take into account that they have a lot to hide? Is he aware that more than two-thirds of my daily mail is taken up with complaints against the London Borough of Bexley, which I partially represent? He should not be misled by the local authorities.

Mr. Walker: I am certain that the previous Government in setting up a proper redress against grievances would consult the local authorities concerned, and I am doing that.

Sir R. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are perfectly capable of fighting their constituents' battles for them, whether or not with local authorities? Will he firmly resist any suggestion for setting up more bureaucracy to come between a Member and his constituents?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Fair Rents

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to extend the fair rent system.

Mr. Peter Walker: As I announced on 3rd November, I propose that the fair rent principle should be extended to council dwellings and that controlled tenancies in the private sector should more rapidly be brought into the fair rent system. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Construction, will shortly embark on consultations with the local authority associations on the details of these broad proposals.

Mr. Allason: Has my right hon. Friend any intention of extending the fair rent

principle to furnished dwellings? Will he particularly take into account the desirability of transferring the duties of furnished rent tribunals to the fair rent system?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Francis Committee is reporting on the problem of furnished dwellings, either at the end of the year or early in the coming year. I wish to review the position of furnished dwellings after I have seen that report.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to extend the rent differential to all local authority houses irrespective of low income areas and everything else, in which case the administration may be very heavy? What about the liberty of local authorities to make their own decisions?

Mr. Walker: I believe that the position whereby local authorities have the liberty to keep on providing houses for those in need without many of the financial limitations that affect those local authorities at the moment will be a very important freedom.

Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the content of the Question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is directly in line with Labour Party policy? We hope that he will pursue it. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it strange that he should be moving before he has the report of the Francis Committee, and will he tell us the time scale involved?

Mr. Walker: The only announcement I have made so far is about unfurnished accommodation. I have made no announcement on furnished accommodation because we are awaiting the Francis Committee's report.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that the Government will take all dwellings out of rent control, even houses without inside water, a bath and a lavatory? Is not it monstrous that hundreds of thousands of tenants in slums will be decontrolled in this way?

Mr. Walker: As a result of fixing a fair rent for properties without proper amenities and in bad condition, the rents could be lower than controlled rents.

General Improvement Areas

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the general improvement areas declared by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1969 were originally intended for slum clearance and redevelopment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Local authorities are not obliged to give this information but from the reports available I have no reason to think there are many such cases.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister take it from me that during the visits I have made round the country I have seen many authorities with serious housing and slum problems who are doing precisely this? Will he be a little less complacent about it and stop local authorities from switching from slum clearance to improvements and abusing the Act?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are being complacent, why on earth, when he was in office, did he frame the present Act in this way?

House Building (Local Authorities)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to increase the building of houses to rent by local authorities in development areas.

Mr. Channon: The reform of housing finance which my right hon. Friend announced on 3rd November will mean that local authorities with serious housing problems in development areas as elsewhere, will be better placed to solve them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that great doubt still exists, particularly in development areas, about this possibility? Is it his intention to increase the amount of local authority building for tenants, because a very large number of people cannot afford to buy houses?

Mr. Channon: What my right hon. Friend said in his statement was that local authorities with the worst housing problems would receive the most help.

Mr. Crosland: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we shall have a statement filling out some of the details of the very vague statement made on 3rd November? Secondly, since there is grievous disquiet in the development areas about many aspects of government policy, when will his right hon. Friend, who has regional responsibilities, among others, make a statement on the Government's regional policy?

Mr. Channon: In regard to the second part of the question, I will ask my right hon. Friend to get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend is about to engage in negotiations with local authorities. When they are complete, further statements will be made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

New Towns

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of his decision to encourage the sale of existing houses in new towns, he will now take steps to ensure that in future more land in new towns will be allocated for private building of houses for sale than for corporation building of houses for rent.

Mr. Peter Walker: The proportion of land to be used for these two purposes is bound to depend on complex local circumstances. I shall however be encouraging development corporations to make enough land available to allow private house building to take an increasing share.

Mr. Tebbit: Am I safe in assuming that my right hon. Friend is aware that if we are to reach the 50–50 ratio which is the absolute minimum acceptable to most of us on this side of the House, in new towns particularly, he will have to divert very large areas of land to have houses built on them directly for sale instead of going through the back door of renting them to tenants first and then selling them?

Mr. Walker: I think that the 50–50 ratio was agreed by both sides of the


House. Certainly, I agree that much progress must be made to reach that figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Lipton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to amend the Standing Orders to provide that Questions to Ministers shall not be tabled more than two weeks before such Questions are due to be answered.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on this matter on 28th October.
Only two hon. Members have so far approached me, but I will continue to keep these matters under review.—[Vol. 805, c. 215–6.]

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that no hon. Members have approached him to maintain the present system, so the score is two to nil? Three weeks being a long time in politics, will the Lord President of the Council take note that, as a result of the present arrangements, the Order Paper is cluttered up with a load of silly old rubbish which prevents topical Questions from being asked at the appropriate time?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would not be right for me to follow the hon. Gentleman into any comments, critical or otherwise, on the Questions which are put down on the Order Paper. There are problems concerned with the Question roster as it is today, in particular in connection with the introduction of a large new Department. I am prepared to consider the whole problem. I think it right to keep the present Question roster and the present arrangements until Christmas, but I am willing to consider changes thereafter, if that be the general wish of the House. It is a matter for the House.

Mr. Turton: As the right hon. Gentleman has on previous occasions said that he was anxious to hear the presentations of hon. Members, will he arrange a short debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on this subject before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly consider what my right hon. Friend says, but I cannot give him a firm guarantee on that. If I cannot find time for such a debate, I shall be happy to hear all representations and try to assess the mood of the House—which can frequently be done without a debate.

Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister, who is seriously abusing Question Time by regularly evading Answers to Questions? If we do not get Answers between 3.15 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we might as well dispense with the whole paraphernalia.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can very well understand why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to dispense with the whole procedure—they have recently been so badly worsened in it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that during the period from the resumption of sittings in October to 12th November it was possible for Ministers to answer orally only 452 of the 1,120 Questions put down for Oral Answer during that period; and whether, in the light of this, he will give further consideration to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session that the time allotted for oral Questions be extended to one hour.

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise that the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman present the House with a problem. Of course, I will consider further the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank my right hon. Friend for what I construe to be a sympathetic reply. Would he agree that the figures suggest that the situation is now similar to that which caused the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Parliament to recommend that the addition of perhaps five or six minutes to Question Time would greatly increase the effectiveness of this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I said in answer to earlier questions, I am certainly prepared to consider carefully all the representations made to me on this point. I


believe that the changes such as my right hon. Friend proposes are a matter for the House as a whole, and I would be prepared to regard them in that sense.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RESEARCH ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in order to enable Members to have more time to serve on Committees and attend debates in the Chamber, he will make arrangements to provide Members who wish it with individual research assistance.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted my hon. Friend's proposal, but I think the first priority must be staffing assistance for the proposed new Select Committee structure.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of time is spent by hon. Members in doing simple research tasks which could be done for them, and that although the Library does its best, it cannot provide the continuity or the understanding of an individual Member's outlook that is desirable?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have always thought the Library research service was, within the limits set, extremely good. I feel that we ought first to assess the needs of Select Committees before we go further in this matter.

Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facilities provided by the Library, admirable though they be, are inadequate to enable the Legislature to probe the Executive properly, and that no Parliament has an Executive more in need of probing than this one?

Mr. Whitelaw: That would not accord with my own view having for some six years in Opposition sat opposite the right hon. Gentleman, before he was removed from office, and others of his hon. and right hon. Friends. However that may be, I still want to hear the views of the Chairman of the new Select Committee, when it is set up, to consider first its requirements. I am sure that that is the right priority and the best way to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether in view of the fact that neither this House nor the general public have had an opportunity of giving judgment on whether or not Great Britain should apply for admission or negotiate terms and conditions for entry into the European Economic Community, he will arrange for a House of Commons debate on this subject.

Mr. Whitelaw: These matters are, of course, kept under constant review, and I would make any announcement that was to be made in the course of a future Business Statement.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that uncustomarily evasive reply. Is he against the present procedure whereby all the political leaders are doing their utmost to prevent both the general public and this House from having an opportunity to discuss even the matter of whether negotiations should proceed? As we have not had a debate on this subject, and even now cannot be promised one, will he look at this matter with a view to our having a debate, if possible before Christmas?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to follow the hon. Gentleman in his various policy views. So far as a debate is concerned, I am always prepared to consider that. I prefer to answer such questions as these following the Business Statement rather than in Questions put to me on these occasions, since that is the proper place for me to answer them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the increases approved for civil servants, chairmen and members of the nationalised boards, judges, local government officers and public employees since 1964 and the arrangements made for continuing increases, he will give the reason why he will not move to increase the salaries of Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not believe that it would be right to increase the salaries


of Members of the House of Commons in present circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: This may or may not be right, but could the right hon. Gentleman explain why everybody in the country, including civil servants, have had consistent and regular increases since 1964 and that the latter are due to get further increases in January totalling some 43 per cent.? If it is fair for them, why is it not fair for Members of Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question that my answer "may or may not be right". I believe that it is right.

Mr. Lane: Although I support my right hon. Friend's attitude to salaries at the present time, I wonder whether he could confirm that throughout this Parliament he will do his best to keep up the momentum of improvement in our general facilities?

Mr. Whitelaw: There were improvements in facilities produced by the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). I have made one improvement in regard to Members' car mileage allowances, and I believe that that was right.

Mr. Pearl: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about improvement in facilities. Is he aware that, although we should seek to improve facilities, we should not dodge the issue of proper and adequate remuneration for Members? I believe that some sort of machinery should exist to look into these matters. We had the Lawrence Report some years ago which, in the end, produced an increase. In view of what the Services Committee has done, and remembering that it is an all-party matter, I believe that it can be said that there is general agreement on all sides that something should be done at some time.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's view that something should be done at some time. At the present time I will stick to my original Answer.

Sir R. Thompson: Since hon. Members are about the only people in the country who, at the drop of a hat, can increase their salaries if they so wish,

should we not be exceedingly reluctant to do so?

Mr. Whitelaw: In present circumstances I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there are many Members who are not millionaires, who are not company directors, and who do not receive any retaining fees from anybody outside this House? Is it not clear that, firstly, whether or not we increase salaries at this particular time, something must be done to give Members further assistance in regard to secretarial help so that such people may be paid a proper and decent wage and be given proper conditions in which to work, and, secondly, that there should be assistance to Members, particularly provincial Members, so that they can lodge in decent conditions when they have to come to this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am certainly prepared to accept the facts which the hon. Gentleman produced at the beginning of his question. I note his other points, and I am certainly prepared to consider them, but I cannot at this time go further than my original Answer.

Mr. Marten: In view of what my right hon. Friend said, could he nevertheless take a sympathetic look at the situation of widows of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I am perfectly prepared to look at all these matters, and, indeed, at pensions as well. There are many matters involved, and I should not like anybody in the House to think that in my replies, restrictive as they have been, I do not appreciate many of the problems raised by this Question. I do appreciate them. In present circumstances I must say that I will consider them all, but at this time I must stick to my original Answer.

Mr. William Hamilton: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accede to the request in the Question, will he not consider the desirability of producing a public register of Members' outside financial interests so that the public may know which Members have to live on their salary full-time and which do not?

Mr. Whitelaw: That raises quite other questions from that which I originally answered.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is the Leader of the House aware of any other group of employees in this country who have not had a salary increase in six years? If so, will he list them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Whitelaw: I personally would not like this House to become engaged in a form of pressure over its own remuneration. I recognise many of the problems involved and have said so. Equally, I feel it right in the present national circumstances to stick to my original Answer, and I do stick to it.

Mr. Tugendhat: In view of the tone of the questions on this subject, would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for Members' salaries to be linked to a grade in the Civil Service, so that increases would be automatic and we should not need to have this sort of discussion?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are all matters which can properly be considered.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Lawrence Committee met it was not under the impression that price rises would continue in all countries as well as in ours? This being so, and since inflation is a natural phenomenon with which we have to come to terms, surely what we now need is another committee impartially to examine this matter and to operate a wage-price link such as applies in other Parliaments?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS)

Mr. English: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied with the facilities available to Members for obtaining translations of documents; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: There are no specialist staff of the House engaged on translation, and I am not satisfied that the expense involved would be justified by the amount of work which would be demanded.

Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Office does not translate European Economic Community documents, other than the regulations, in their Gazette? Is he further aware that a document as important as

the Werner Report has not been translated either by the E.E.C. or by the Foreign Office? Would he kindly explain why my first Question on the subject was transferred to the Foreign Office, which does not itself do the job?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the Library is able to obtain from Government Departments translations for Members. If I am wrong I shall be pleased to look into the point, but that is what I am informed. It is the reason that the Question was transferred.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES

Lorries (Heavy Loads)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider new regulations for the stowage of heavy loads in lorries.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My right hon. Friend is very concerned about the safety of the loads on lorries and is considering what further guidance might be given on this subject.

Mr. Wall: I welcome the Minister's reply, but would he not agree that the present regulations are very imprecise, particularly in regard to open lorries, and that some loads are so stowed that they are a danger to the driver and to other road users?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend would know that Regulation 76 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations requires the packing, distribution and adjustment of load to be such that no danger is caused, and also requires that the load must be secured so that no danger is likely to be caused through its falling off. I recognise the need for further precision and my right hon. Friend is right now looking into this matter.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present the Minister for Transport Industries is considering an increase in the permitted load on lorries? How does that square with what he just said?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will realise that increase in load is one thing and increase in an unsafe load is another. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will in no sense consider increases in unsafe loads.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 17th November].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman: Before I call Amendment No. 65, may I say that I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if we took Amendment No. 18 and Government Amendment No. 66 together.

Clause 2

PRESCRIBED AMOUNT

3.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary, of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 1, line 26, leave out from 'substitute' to end of subsection and insert:
'higher amounts for those for the time being specified in this section'.
The Amendment will ensure that the prescribed amount levels cannot be reduced. It meets a point made by the Opposition, who have tabled an Amendment which is technically imperfect. This meets precisely the same point, and I am very glad that we start the afternoon by accepting in effect a valuable suggestion put forward by the Opposition. There was never any intention by the Government that the prescribed levels should be reduced. The Amendment achieves what both the Opposition and the Government wish to achieve.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the Amendment, which meets a point we raised, and we are very pleased to accept it. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that there are a number of good and rather bigger suggestions later. We are sure that he will accept them in the same spirit.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dick Taverne: I should like to turn to the question of rents,

which we discussed last night, when the Under-Secretary of State gave a rather brief reply to the short debate on that issue. We understand why his reply was brief. It was because of the lateness of the hour, when everyone wanted to make progress.
As I understand the hon. Gentleman's reply, he gave two main answers to the points put to him. First, he said that if we wrote into the Bill a provision that account should be taken of the rents payable on the lines suggested in our Amendment the scheme would be delayed, and everyone would like to see the scheme, such as it is, come into operation as soon as possible. Second, he said that the matter was in any event covered by the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the standard rent allowance.
If it were true that this provision cannot be inserted now because it would delay the scheme, then we should have to accept that. But could not the hon. Gentleman undertake to put it in as soon as possible? Could not he or his right hon. Friend move on Report an Amendment enabling the standard rent to be considered as soon as the administrative problems have been solved?
There is no doubt that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services must recognise the importance of this element. He said on 10th November:
I must confirm that there are large numbers of working households which are very hard pressed although their incomes are often substantially above the supplementary benefit level.
We might add that that applies not only to those above but also to those below that level. The hon. Gentleman went on:
There is one principal reason for this. It is that many of the poorest pay large rents.
In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman changed the proportion of families below the supplementary benefit levels that were to be helped. Just before this passage he had said:
We shall help over half the households below the poverty line as defined by the supplementary benefit level.
But after the passage which I have just read, in which he referred to the depressing effect of high rents on family income, he said:
The people who pay large rents are not helped by the Bill, and that is why the


Measure brings help to only between one-half and one-third of working households below the supplementary benefit level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 226–7.]
We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) of the kind of families that are affected. They are particularly the large families, of whom there are many amongst the lower-paid. They are the families with the greatest difficulties in the first place in finding council house accommodation. Often this is because of the severe competition for council houses with the large number of bedrooms that such families require. So they pay high private rents instead. They include many families where the wage-earner is a casual labourer, and the nature of his work means that they move from the area of one housing authority to another. In those cases there is a desperate search for the kind of accommodation that the family must have. They often end up paying rents which are high by any standards but which are aggravated still more by the fact that they need larger accommodation.
The solution of including rent should commend itself to the Government, because it deals to some extent with the central problem they are seeking to meet. They are trying to deal with the difference between a family in work and a family out of work. There are cases where a family in work may be worse off but the breadwinner still goes to work out of a sense of self-respect. However, that is not likely to happen if the gap is too big, and it is likely to be too large precisely for the large families with many children—that was the reason for the other Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams)—and where the Supplementary Benefits Commission helps with the rent if the wage-earners are out of work but where no help is given when they are in work. The logic of the philosophy behind the Bill requires it to help in precisely such cases.
The other answer given by the Government was that we should wait for the proposals for a standard rent allowance. Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out the long time gap which will occur. It may be that there will be some delay before the rent can be taken into

consideration for the purpose of F.I.S. I believe that that would be a delay of perhaps a few months. But if families have to wait for the standard rent allowance to come into operation they will have to wait 18 months to two years, and perhaps three years.
We do not know how much help the standard rent allowance will give in these very needy cases. We shall have a wider spread of assistance, but at the same time we shall have a big saving on present projections. We have no guarantees, as we have no figures, that the allowance will deal with the high rent problems for the large families. If the scheme which is eventually put into practice by the Secretary of State for the Environment is adequate to meet the high rent problem, nothing will have been lost by putting it in the Bill, because this matter will have been catered for anyway. The provisions may be otiose, but they will do no harm. If the scheme is not sufficiently generous to help with the high rent problem of large families, safeguards should be provided in the Bill.
The third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick was that the scheme does not apply to furnished accommodation. There will be many cases where low earners paying high rents will have to find furnished lodgings because nothing else is available.
For these three reasons—the time gap, the doubt about how far the scheme will cover it, and the gap in the provisions about furnished accommodation—I do not see that the Government can rely on the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Environment meeting this severe problem which was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin about the test of the good faith of the Government. They have never answered the point that they promised £30 million of aid and are providing only £7 million. All the arguments about how much FAM would provide are irrelevant to the issue: are they going to help to a large extent or to a small extent—to the extent that they promised? If the Government wrote an Amendment into the Bill on Report that rent would be taken


into account as soon as it was practicable to do so—as soon as the administrative problems were solved—they would be rather less far away from the promise that they gave than at this moment.

Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has raised a question which was discussed on Second Reading; namely, rent levels and the reason that rent is not included. I cannot add much to what I told the Committee yesterday. We fully accept, and have never disguised from the Committee, that, in taking the average rent level, those on low rents will be helped thereby, whereas those on high rents will not get the full advantage. The reason that we have taken this average figure of £2 10s. is to get the scheme off the ground as speedily as we can—the Committee has been urging us on this matter—and to keep it as simple as possible.
It was clear from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that to try to do in the Bill what he suggests would take us into the realm of rent policy and help with rents. This is not a matter with which we can effectively and adequately deal in a Bill of this nature. It is, after all, essentially a Bill to supplement the income of families in full-time work which are below the supplementary benefit levels. It is essentially a family income supplement. Rents are certainly an important part in the budget of any family, but equally they involve rent policy as a whole, which is a substantial matter and cannot be suitably dealt with in a Bill of this character. It is primarily for that reason that we feel that to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes is not really acceptable.
I turn now to one or two particular points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Concerning the timing, we intend to introduce the family income supplement as early as possible. It is our intention that it should be introduced in August next year. There is no doubt that, to introduce the inevitable complications involved in assessing rents and introducing a rent element over and above the average figure which we have taken, would enormously complicate the scheme, the claims, and the assessments which would have to be carried out. There is

little doubt, therefore, that it would be impossible to keep to the date to which I am sure the Committee would wish us to keep, namely, August, 1971. We would then be pushing back the whole scheme. We would be pushing further into the future the help which we all want to give to the families who will benefit. My right hon. Friend's scheme will go a long way to deal with this problem, and he is pressing ahead with it as fast as possible. It is hoped that the scheme will reach fruition in 1972.
Regarding the time factor, bearing in mind that were we to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals the date of the Bill would be pushed back, there is probably little in it in practice. That is an important point.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that certain figures have been quoted, which apparently were contradictory, about the number of families below supplementary benefit level which would be helped by the Bill taking into account the level of rents. The correct figure is over one-half.
3.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was a test of good faith on the part of the Government. The test of good faith is the action which the Government intend to take. The test of good faith on family poverty is the Bill. The test of good faith on rents and on rent allowances is the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment which will introduce the new rent allowance, and, above all, will bring help for the first time to families in poverty which are in private accommodation. These are two effective examples of good faith on the part of the Government.
Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the figure of £30 million which has been dragged up before. I suppose that I must repeat, yet again, that the figure in fact, as far as the net help to poor families is concerned, would be £6 million, whereas—

Mr. Taverne: rose

Mr. Dean: Perhaps I may finish my sentence—whereas the Bill is offering help of £7 million. Therefore, it cannot


be said that the previous statement would bring more effective help.

Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman is not meeting my point that the £30 million is a promise which could still be met. If the hon. Gentleman had accepted our Amendment, he would be much nearer the figure of £30 million.

Mr. Dean: I am saying that the £30 million, which we hear from the Opposition, is totally unrealistic. They have picked out one bit of the arithmetic without completing the full picture. The full picture would be £6 million, whereas the Bill is proposing a higher figure. Therefore, it is more than carrying out the pledge and the figure which was given earlier.
In view of what I have said, particularly on the rent allowance point, I hope that the Committee will feel that it is best to proceed with the Clause as it stands, combined with the provision for rent allowance which will shortly be introduced and which is another step in dealing with family poverty for those families which are being helped by the Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to what was said by the Under-Secretary. He did not answer any of the points which I made yesterday, but I will leave that aspect because we shall have an opportunity to return to it on Report.
I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman's complacent attitude to rents. He did not pay attention to the real problem of some of the families which will be receiving F.I.S. The hon. Gentleman also placed a great deal of faith on the Parliamentary programme, by assuming that the proposals for rent allowance announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment will come into operation.
I mention this because I do not think that the Minister should close his mind to the problem. Even if one accepts the bulk of his argument, there is one area in which help could be given, and that is in the provision made for two families who are in receipt of F.I.S. For the purpose of the Bill they constitute one household, and for the purpose of rent they occupy one premise, a council house or a council flat.
In working out rebate schemes most local authorities, working on the basis of their own arrangements, or on the recommendations of the Department, take into consideration the total income coming into the house. They consider not only the income of the wage earner, but the money received by the wife and children and any people who are classed as lodgers.
It is not impossible to envisage a situation in which there are two households in receipt of F.I.S. One family has to pay the main burden of the rent. By virtue of the scales laid down for rent rebate, by virtue of having £30 within the household, it has to pay a hefty rent even though, in terms of the other family it could be very much worse off perhaps even if they have it.
We have an interval of nearly a year before the scheme is implemented. It should not be impossible for the Minister, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to issue a circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the situation in which some of the tenants are in households with two families receiving FI.S., and that some provision should be made for them on the general means test basis. That should be done if one accepts the Minister's argument, which of course I do not. I think that we should be able to make this disregard in the Bill. But, even if the Minister is not prepared to do that, he could take a simple administrative step which could alleviate a great deal of the difficulty that will arise.

Mr. Taverne: The Minister's reply was totally unsatisfactory. The Clause as it stands, after the rejection of our Amendments and after the Minister's refusal to consider my suggestion, provides no solution to the gap between those in work and those out of work, particularly the large families.
The hon. Gentleman's argument about pushing back the date of implementation of the whole scheme totally fails to answer my suggestion that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill to take effect when the administrative problems have been solved. What it comes to is that the Government are determined to stick to the figure of £7 million. They have made that plain by their answer on this Clause. This has been a test


of good faith, and they have failed it. We therefore intend to vote against the Clause.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 154.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[3.54 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Awdry, Daniel
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hayhoe, Barney
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Raison, Timothy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Brewis, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rost, Peter


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Spence, John


Cordle, John
Lambton, Antony
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stokes, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Loveridge, John
Sutcliffe, John


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Dixon, Piers
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Madel, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
White law, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Molyneaux, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gorst, John
Monro, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Cower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
More, Jasper
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hon. George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gummer, Selwyn
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Mr Walter Clegg and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom





NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cronin, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S. W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Barnes, Michael
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Barnett, Joel
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dempsey, James


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Devlin, Miss Bernadette


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Duffy, A. E. P.




Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerlyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Foot, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil
Sillars, James


Garrett, W. E.
McCann, John
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Harman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tomney, Frank


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Walter, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn, Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John
Whitehead, Phillip




Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


John, Brynmor
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.



Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Kerr, Russell
Rankin, John
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Lambie, David

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

AMOUNT OF FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

The Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) to move the next Amendment, I would remind the Committee that we shall be discussing with it Amendments Nos. 21, in page 2, line 4, leave out:
'but shall not in any case exceed £3',
and No. 22, in line 4, at end insert:
'or such higher sum as in the circumstances of the case may be approved by the Supplementary Benefits Commission'

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'one half 'and insert 'two thirds'.
As I understand it, all the Amendments in this group raise essentially the same issue. It is a question where the balance should be drawn between two converse dangers. If the sum paid to the recipient

is too high he has no incentive to work harder, no incentive to get a better job and no incentive to press for a fairer wage; if the sum paid to him is too low, those who are intended to benefit continue to exist below the subsistence level.
My mind is not made up beyond the possibility of reconsideration as to the correct proportion or the correct formula. I am hoping that this discussion will help to clarify my mind. But I hope that the Minister will not be too disappointed if we do not exactly exude sympathy from these benches, because his dilemma is of his own making. If a Government choose to tackle the problem in this way instead of in the way in which we understood was the original election promise they build into the whole framework of the Bill a dilemma precisely like this.
Leaving aside the objections, one would have thought that the natural formula would be to say that incomes would be made up to what in the Bill is called the prescribed amount and what many of my constituents would think of as the breadline. The arguments against it may be stated in two ways. The first is the way


adopted by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who, for unavoidable reasons, is not present today. The way in which he put it was that this was a poverty surtax. He said that if a loss of 8s. 6d. in the pound on an average or higher income is a disincentive to earning more, at the lower end a subsidy of 10s. in the pound on money that is not earned must, ipso facto, be a greater disincentive.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Kensington, South, whose compassion is not in dispute, was using this as an argument against this method of tackling the problem, but there is a danger that it could be real ammunition in the armoury of the uncompassionate. It could emerge as a repetition of the old argument that the rich will not work unless we make them richer and the poor will not work unless we make them poorer. I should be more impressed by that way of stating the argument if we had more information about the effects of disincentives. There is a complete dearth of research in this matter, and one contribution which the hon. Member's Department might make to this question would be to initiate some research into the effect of the alleged incentives and disincentives on how hard people work.
I know many people who do not like paying income tax, and I do not argue vigorously with them about it. I do not know many people—if I can think of one—who actually work less hard because of the tax they pay; indeed, I could point to some who work harder because they want to make up for what they consider to be the difference between what they earn and what is left to them. In my submission there is little evidence of a disincentive effect of this kind. I do not believe that many people in the lower income brackets enjoy working for a lower wage simply in order that that wage shall be made up.
A more impressive way of stating the objection is that wages are likely to become more depressed if public funds are used to shoulder a burden that should properly fall on the employer. I find that argument more worrying. Public funds are a sanctified commodity when it is suggested that they should be used to benefit the public generally, or a specific section of the public in the lower

income brackets. Public funds cease to be sanctioned only when they are being used as a substitute for a burden that should fall on industrial management.
That is the real objection that is summed up in the Speenhamland argument. I was startled to discover that I was probably one of the earliest to give this argument the label "Speenhamland". I discovered with a shock that I had mentioned it in the House on 24th May, 1966. If anybody wants to initiate research, he will find what I said at column 393 in HANSARD. Basically this is a way of restating a substantially wider argument—whether it is justifiable deliberately to depress conditions to create a public outcry for something better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said yesterday that in his view the Bill was not in the long-term interests of the poor. I agree, but I cannot find it in my heart to say that we should oppose the Bill in the absence—from our point of view—of anything better. We are condemned, in the interests of those whom the Bill seeks to benefit, at least to try to improve it as best we can. We must start with the Bill that we have.
I cannot bring myself to advocate that one generation of individuals should be deliberately condemned to suffer in order that future generations may benefit. It is too easy to say that that would be a price worth paying when we in this House do not have to pay it. If working conditions and wages for the future are to be improved the responsibility lies upon all of us, and it would be too easy, and grossly unfair, to push it off on to the shoulders of those who have burdens enough already.
If those two arguments are not held to have sufficient weight we are left with what appears to be an unanswerable argument for giving higher benefits to people who are obviously in need of relief. If the arguments are not held to be overwhelming—and at the moment I should require convincing about that—in my submission we should bring these families, if not into affluence, at least closer to the subsistence level.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I will not, if he will permit me, follow the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter


Archer) into the intriguing arguments about the disincentive effects of high taxation. If I did, I should take up a good deal of the time of the Committee. I want to address myself solely to the point raised in Amendment No. 21—the £3 limit. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will, I am sure, recall that on Second Reading I raised this matter and asked him certain questions about it. In particular, I then put the point, which still seems to me to be material, that the overall limit of £3 runs counter to what I understand to be the general principle of the Bill.
That principle appears to be that one takes the prescribed amounts, varying, very properly, with the size of the family, and then makes up half the difference between the family income and the prescribed amount. That is a comprehensible formula. I know that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, in respect of his own Amendment, thought that half was the wrong proportion, but it is at least a rational and understandable principle.
But when one superimposes on that principle an arbitrary limit of a particular figure—and not a very high figure—of £3, one seems both to cast some doubts on the main principle of the Bill and, I believe—I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend says, of course—to inflict a considerable measure of particular hardship on certain categories.
I would imagine—here again, I am willing to hear what my hon. Friend has to say—that the £3 limit would bite hardest in the case of the larger families, because the prescribed amount rises by £2 per child, so that the likelihood of a gap of one-half the difference between the prescribed amount and the family income obviously becomes greater as one moves into the larger families. But these are precisely the families where the greatest hardship is likely to be found.
On Second Reading I asked my hon. Friend what it would cost to abolish the £3 limit and simply apply the formula of the Bill without the limit. I do not complain of the fact that when winding up, because he had to encounter certain difficulties, he was not able to answer that question. In the more peaceful atmosphere of this afternoon, I hope that he may be able to make up for that omission.
The Committee would accept, I think, that no one who has served at the Treasury is likely to advocate any proposal, however sound, without knowing the cost; so I should like to know the cost. I venture, with some caution, to suggest that it might not be very large, but I am more than likely to be wrong, and I would like to have the figure. I gather that steps are now being taken to obtain it.
This is what is important, a departure from the principle of the Bill. My hon. Friend, with his habitual courtesy, referred to this matter in the winding-up speech, although, while his courtesy was up to his habitual standard, his lucidity was somewhat below it. I sympathise with him. The Committee may remember that he was subjected, in terms of decibels at any rate, to a formidable onslaught from the front bench below the Gangway opposite, and even an experienced Parliamentarian like my hon. Friend possibly finds these things disconcerting.
4.15 p.m.
This is what my hon. Friend said:
I turn now to the questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), especially that concerning the £3 maximum proposed. The main reason is the incentive that it provides.
I do not follow that. I suppose that the point on incentive is the difference between the family income of earnings supplemented by F.I.S. compared with the family income on supplementary benefit. But, of course, family income if one is on supplementary benefit rises with the number of one's children because of the allowance per child. Therefore, I do not follow why this limitation has such importance from the point of view of incentive, at any rate from that angle.
My hon. Friend went on:
Equally, we are anxious to make the full-time work test as simple as possible and to treat one-parent families as generously as we can.
With all respect, interposing this arbitrary limit does not make the test simpler. Marginally, I suppose it makes it more complicated, because there is one more process which has to be completed—does half the difference between family income and prescribed amount come to more than £3?
So I do not see my hon. Friend's argument about simplicity and treating one-parent families as generously as we can. If the one-parent family is, as is sometimes the case, the large family, this treats it less generously than if the limitation were not there.
My hon. Friend went on:
Equally, it is necessary to have some maximum, otherwise anyone who can show that he or she is working full time will be able to claim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 334.]
With respect, I do not follow that. As I understand the Bill, no one will be able to claim unless his family income is less, and less by at least 10s., than the prescribed standard. So here again, although all the ideas that my hon. Friend put forward—incentive, simplicity, need to exclude everyone in full-time work from claiming—are admirable ideas, I am unable to follow from that how those ideas are helped and supported by this limitation.
The limit seems to me to bite most hard on the larger family. That is precisely the type of family which would have gained most had my right hon. Friend decided to proceed on the basis of using the family allowance instrument: the bigger the family, obviously the larger the family allowance.
My right hon. Friend gave what he regarded as good reasons—whether one accepts them or not, they are, as one would expect from him, logical and arguable reasons—why on this occasion he would not proceed by way of family allowances. But I should have thought that that decision to some extent imposed on him a duty to ensure that those who would stand to gain most from use of the family allowance instrument should not be unduly handicapped or kept back by the limitation on the use of this instrument.
Therefore, I must say to my hon. Friend—I shall be very happy to listen to his argument—that at the moment I am very unhappy about the £3 limit. He talked about this being a test of good faith, and I agree with him. But surely one should not therefore impose, without better reasons than we have so far heard, a limitation which diminishes the good which this measure will undoubtedly do

in the case of some of the hardest hit families.

Mr. John Pardoe: I want to direct my attention primarily also to Amendment No. 21, in my name and the names of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and her hon. Friends. The fact that my name was top of the list really means that I put mine in first and they put theirs in after, and that great minds thought alike. It is one of the advantages of being an outsider in this House that I do not have the weight of numbers to carry and I do not have to get agreement to any Amendment I put down—except, of course, the agreement of the Government, which I covet on this occasion.
My Amendment deals with the £3 limit. As everyone has calculated, this will clearly affect the larger family, because, after all, taking the family with one child, the prescribed amount is £15. It is difficult to imagine the situation in which the difference, when halved, could result in a figure of more than £3 and in which case they would lose by it. One doubles the £3 to get the £6, and then one has to subtract that from the prescribed amount to find the point at which the family's income would actually lose money as a result of the £3 limit. For a family with one child, the prescribed amount is £15. If one takes £6 off that, one gets down to £9, and that is the point at which they would then lose something by the £3 limit. But there can be very few families with one child whose resources are as low as that—thank goodness.
Going up the scale a little to a family with two children, the prescribed amount is £15 plus £2, a total of £17. The resources would have to be £11 before they would lose out as a result of the £3 limit. I think my calculations are right. The Parliamentary Secretary will amend them if they are wrong. I got a little muddled as to which side of the resources one adds family allowance, but no doubt he will sort out the mathematics. For the family with six children, by my calculations we have a figure of £15 plus five times £2, making a total of £25. Then the resources would have to be £25 less £6. It is easy to imagine a family with six children having total resources of £19 or less. If its resources


were less than £19, it would lose out by the £3 limit. This is what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) meant when he said that it is the larger family who will lose.
What about, say, the family of six children with resources of £16? They are below the prescribed amount by £9. Applying the figure of 50 per cent., they ought to get £4 10s. In fact, they will only get £3. This seems an injustice.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that having read through the points that the Minister made in his reply to the Second Reading debate, I cannot say that he is on very strong ground, unless he was to argue that it was a question of cost, and I cannot think that the cost would be sufficient to make it very strong ground. But if the Government were of a particularly cheeseparing mind, as no doubt they are, then I imagine they want to stick to the £8 million. It may cost a few hundred thousands or even a million pounds to accept the Amendment.
The Minister said that the main reason for the limit was the incentive reason. I do not accept that argument. I do not want to go into details on the question of financial incentives. It is an open debate, which runs the way one's political prejudices run. Nobody can prove the argument, but it will be canvassed every time we debate taxation or social security. We may wish to have some incentive for people who are, say, out of work—which does not include these people—so that we can overcome the problem of political unacceptability by the public.
Some people, by no means Fascist in their inclinations, are worried when they see people out of work getting more, or nearly as much, as they who are working. This is a big problem in all social security benefits. It does not apply to this. But if a family with six children were getting a supplement of £5 or £6 a week, and therefore a substantial income compared with other people in the road, and the other people knew and were in a better-paid job but getting in total a lower income political unacceptability would follow. This is probably the reason for the relationship between the supplement and supplementary benefit. There are other ways to overcome the resulting tensions and problems, however. The

argument about financial incentive or disincentive has not been sufficiently settled to be used as an argument for keeping the £3 limit.
Oother reasons could be adduced for the £3 limit. The Under-Secretary has not adduced them yet, though he may do so. It may be part of the Government's new population policy. I am probably in a minority of one but I believe that the time is coming when we must seriously discuss population policy. One cannot stress too often that there is absolutely no connection between the level of financial incentive for having children and the actual number of children in a family. If there were, middle-class parents ought to be breeding ad lib, because their tax incentive for having more children is astronomically greater than the family allowance, supplementary benefit, or any of the other benefits, particularly this.
I do not see why the Government are so intent on applying the limit. It would be a guide to their sense of good faith if they were to accept the Amendment. In view of the powerful arguments from his right hon. Friend, I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I dare to cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is a daring thing to do on an issue concerned with social security. I shall not go too far in committing myself to saying that he is wrong. I shall at least put to the Under-Secretary a question which I suspect is at the heart of this problem of the £3 maximum limit.
It is possible that by the time people have received family incomes supplement, when they have large families—it was large families my right hon. Friend was particularly concerned about—and by the time they have also received certain rebates or benefits, whatever one likes to call them, which would not be available to people with larger incomes, such as free school meals, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, spectacles, and so on, one is getting close to the situation where some on ostensibly a rather low income are having a higher net income than people on about £24 per week.
If the accumulation of these benefits is such that somebody with £14 a week income is as well off as somebody with £24 a week—assuming that he has a large family, for it would not apply otherwise—that is essentially a nonsensical situation which cannot be defended. It is right therefore to have this £3 maximum.
I do not want to deal with disregards now, but I have observed a reply to a Question in which the Secretary of State said that for the moment he would disregard disregards.

Mr. Tavern: Why does the hon. Member think that extending the limit beyond £3 will make any difference? Within the £3 range, there are now people who will lose not only 10s. of F.I.S. for every pound they earn, but other benefits clustered round it. The total effect of the scheme will be thoroughly disincentive as it stands.

Mr. Raison: Am I right in assuming that when my right hon. Friend said that he would disregard disregards for the time being, that did not apply to the sort of things I have mentioned, for instance, rebates on spectacle charges, dental charges and so on, which are of a slightly different category from things like family allowances and other more direct cash benefits? I do not see that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument destroys the essential of mine. It seems to me that the limit is necessary to prevent the spread of what may already be a problem and that without the limit we shall get into a slightly ridiculous situation.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I rise to speak on this group of Amendments with optimism in my heart. An Amendment on behalf of the Official Opposition has been supported by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) from the Liberal benches, and we have had the formidable support of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). But it is not only for those reasons that I am optimistic. I thought that the Under-Secretary was somewhat sensitive in a previous debate when discussing the sum of £30 million. In parentheses, perhaps I should say, with great friendship, that one cannot be that sensitive if one is

a Member of the Conservative Government.
However, it is not what the Under-Secretary says, but what the Prime Minister says, and it is the Prime Minister of whom we must take account for these purposes. The Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Frank Field of the Child Poverty Action Group on 1st June, 1970:
As Mr. Macleod said on 15th April, an increase of 10s. in family allowances would cost £30 milion a year using the claw-back procedure.
In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 2nd November, Mr. Field pointed out:
You will remember that in this year's budget debate lain Macleod stated that as the Government had £220 million to return to the taxpayer, about £30 million ought to have gone to low income families in the form of increased family allowances.
As we are now discussing a matter seriously and not trying to make party points, I think that we may take it that the Government, anxious as they are to deal with family poverty, would willingly go beyond the total of £8·6 million envisaged by the Bill; so we have some room for manoeuvre and if we can improve the Bill, financial cost will not disbar Amendments.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that this is an argument as to how best to help, as to whether F.I.S. helps best, or family allowances help best? It is an argument as to which way is more effective.

Mr. O'Malley: I would not accept that. I find it hard to conceive of a situation, and I suppose that the public would also find it hard, where to be given £30 million is not somewhat better than to be given £8·6 million. What I am saying is that if we are to distribute money as a result of the family income supplement principle, if we can distribute rather more money, there will be rather more money going to help the family poverty with which we are concerned.
I should like to consider some of the undesirable results which come from having a cut-off at £3. I can understand the reason for a provision limiting the payment to half the difference between income and prescribed means. I recognise the disincentive argument, although it is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley


Williams) and I dealt with this point on Second Reading. Is it possible to make a case, although I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) that it is largely an unproven case, more an assessment based on no solid research, for believing that there would be a disincentive effect if the figure of one half were replaced by the whole amount.
However, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames pointed out, that does not apply to the £3 cut-off. I say that advisedly, in spite of what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the £3 cut-off runs counter to the general principles of the Bill and it has some undesirable side effects.
Let us take the example of a man with about national average earnings—using the out-of-date figures which we are employing in these debates—and with six children. Family poverty is clearly concentrated largely among the large families and it is worse among these families. A man with £12 a week and six children will be entitled to £4 18s. family allowances. The prescribed sum as laid down under the formula of Clause 2 is £25 and half of the difference is £4 1s. But instead of getting £4 ls., he will have the cut-off at £3. The net result will be that his net wage plus the family allowances plus FIS will be £18 18s. 4d., while the supplementary benefit would be £23 10s.
I do not want now to repeat the arguments that the Bill is creating a new poverty line below the supplementary benefit level but, with all the inadequacies of the Bill, when we are discussing it in detail in Committee, we should do everything we can to bring such a man's income as near as possible to the supplementary benefit level. If anyone starts to argue the necessity of the wage stop, the simple answer is that such a man is not unemployed, is not not working. Therefore, one should not use in this instance any of the theoretical arguments which have been used in favour of the wage stop principle.
If there is this difficulty for the man at £12 a week with six children, the argument is even stronger for the low paid widow. Let us take the example of a widow with two children and earning £9

a week, and there are plenty of such examples. She would have 18s. family allowance. Under the 50 per cent. formula of Clause 3(1), she would be entitled to £3 11s., but, as a result of the cut-off, she will lose 11s. I take it further and consider the position of the widow with six children who ought to be getting £5 11 s. but who would be losing £2 11s. under the cut-off formula.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the cut-off bites, and bites hard, on the large family with low earnings.
A further criticism of the cut-off principle is that the same help is given in similar circumstances to people with very real differences in size of family. For example, it gives the same help to a widow—the point applies also to couples at the bottom of the scale, but I think that the majority in this connection would be widows—with a weekly wage of £9 and one child as to a widow with the same earnings but six children. Again, anyone with a weekly income of £11 would receive the same whether there were three or six children in the family, or at £12 a week whether there were four or six children in the family.
Since we are not this afternoon working strictly within the bounds of the £8·6 million, I must ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider this question most carefully. We on this side, as he knows, do not like the whole principle on which the Bill is based, but we genuinely wish nevertheless to try to improve it. We regard Amendment No. 21 as of value in that direction. It would give further alleviation to the problem of family poverty and it would remove some of the crudities introduced into the Bill by the £3 cut-off.

Mr. Albert Booth: I shall discuss Amendment No. 22, Sir Robert, and I trust that you will in due course afford me an opportunity formally to propose it.

The Chairman: Perhaps I should make clear to the hon. Gentleman now that I do not propose to call that Amendment for a Division.

Mr. Booth: Very well, Sir Robert; I understand.
There has been some difficulty apparent in our debate on these three Amendments because of the changing wages situation.


When the Clause was drafted, no doubt, reference was made to the then existing wage rates and the incomes of lower-paid workers.
In an effort to meet that point and argue the case for better provision for people hit by the £3 limit, I have done some research on recent increases in wage rates of lower-paid workers. The increase of 25s. a week which was paid in the bacon-curing industry from 1st July this year raised the rate for grade 1 male workers to £14 18s. 4d. and for grade 3 workers to £13 15s. a week. The increase of 3 per cent. in railway shop-men's pay on 3rd August this year increased the weekly wage of a category 1 railway shopman to £15 4s. in areas outside Greater London. The increase of £1 a week for men in the wire and wire rope industries paid from 7th September this year increased the rate for winders to £12 1s. 2d. a week.
In considering the validity of these Amendments in the light of the latest wage movements, we must have figures of that sort in mind. One could take area rates also to bear the point out. For example, male jute workers in Dundee, who have a wage rate of their own following an increase in their general minimum time rates of 31s. a week in September, now have a weekly rate of £12 15s.
Families with earnings at that sort of level are the people who should benefit from the Bill if the aims claimed for it by the Government are achieved, yet people on those rates are the ones most severely hit by the £3 limit cutting off the amount of family income supplement which would otherwise be paid to them.
I take, for example, men on £13 a week, almost the same as the £12 15s. for the Dundee jute workers. If any of them have five children, they will have family allowances totalling £3 18s., making their wage plus family allowances £16 18s. Their prescribed amount under Clause 2 would be £23. The difference between their wage plus family allowances and the prescribed amount is £6 2s., and the £3 limit would apply, giving them £3 family income supplement, with £3 18s. family allowances and £13 weekly wage, totalling £19 18s.
4.45 p.m.
Let us suppose that a similar family next door has had the misfortune of having the principal wage earner out of work for some time, or even for a relatively short time, and their income is made up by supplementary benefit. That family will have an income of £21 a week, taking £3 rent and other allowances into account. Thus, in these cases, where there is undoubtedly poverty, the person who is working full time in industry has a total family income considerably smaller than that of someone on supplementary benefit.
I hope that the Committee will not think that I have been carefully selective in my choice of rates. One can find similar circumstances in other areas and sections of industry. For instance, there has recently been an increase in the flax-hemp preparing, spinning and weaving industry which has brought male tenters of 21 years and over up to £13 15s. 3d. a week. A pay increase to male workers in the paper box making industry from 9th September this year gave rates of between £14 16s. and £13 a week to men over 21, according to the categories of work which they do. In Bury the district rate for workers employed in the manufacture of cloth for mechanical purposes was increased in August to £13 8s. 4d. for male workers and £9 2s. for female workers. There are whole areas in this country where wage levels are primarily determined by low wage industries and in which many people with large families will be severely affected by the limitation on benefits.
Even within London, where there is a great demand for labour there are wage rates still applying at levels which, if earned by the father of a large family, would bring the £3 limitation into effect. The London Transport Executive—to its shame—on 3rd August brought the weekly payment to track cleaners to £15 3s. I say "to its shame" because the rate should have been raised further. How anyone with five children can live in London on £15 3s. a week I do not know.
I have already shown that the effect of the Bill as drafted is to put a family with five children on £13 a week wage in a considerably worse position than a similar family who rely on supplementary benefit. But even in the £15 range, there


is still a limitation, even without the £3 applying, which makes a man in work worse off than another on supplementary benefit. A man on £15 a week with five children would have £3 18s. family allowances, making a combined family income of £18 18s. Under Clause 2, the prescribed amount for the family is £23, so the difference between wage plus family allowances and the prescribed amount is £4 2s. He would be entitled to £2 1s. family income supplement, giving him the sum of £20 19s., which is still below the supplementary benefit level. Although the £15 a week man receives less than the man on supplementary benefit, he does not receive a total amount as far below the supplementary level as the £13 man. Surely it is obvious that the £13 man, with five children, is more likely to be in desperate need of help. Therefore, this part of the Bill will work against the very purpose which the Government claim it is designed for, namely, to be selective in directing aid to where it is most severely needed. By any objective examination of current wage rates, there is a built-in contradiction in the Bill.
Therefore, the Committee must consider disincentive effects of a different kind to those considered up to now, namely, the disincentive to a man who, through no fault of his own, has been in receipt of supplementary benefit for a considerable time and is offered a job at a low wage. He cannot, as a responsible family man, take that job if it offers considerably less than he could get from supplementary benefit.
I have the greatest sympathy with any person who is put in that position, and I should be very loath to advise him that he should take a cut in income and go to work for low wages. I think that any hon. Member would be loath to give such advice. Faced with such a query from a constituent, and realising that what he needed was more income, one would be tempted to say to him, "Get one morning's work a week at £2 which will increase your income but will not cut down your supplementary benefit allowance." For a Bill to place hon. Members in such a position that they will seriously have to consider giving advice of that sort is very serious, and the Government should at least think again before we pass the Clause.
There is obviously a case for revising the Bill in respect of payments to families affected by the £3 family income supplement limit. Whatever objections I have to the Bill as a whole. I appeal to the Government to consider this part of it in particular because even by their own criteria it fails to meet its aim. There is neither natural justice nor logic in using public funds in a way which disadvantages the poorest workers while claiming to meet their special needs.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Committee has enjoyed listening to the sort of constructive speech which we expect to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Supported, oddly enough, by the right hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my hon. Friend has flattered the Government. The argument revolves around the weakness of the £3 cut-off. We have not had any information from the Government on this matter, and so I had better not jump to conclusions, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that the question of cut-off is the crucial weakness in the Bill.
It is generally accepted that the average amount of supplement likely to be paid is £1 per family. It is true that the limitation placed on people with larger families will be quite significant. It is impossible for us properly to consider the Clause and the Amendments without knowing a bit more about the resources which must be taken into account. This means thinking in terms of what will be counted as income and about whether provision will be made for disregards. Otherwise, the discussion must be confined to the very narrow point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I hope that we shall have some more information on this subject before we come to a conclusion on the Amendments.
Why should family allowance be included as part of income? No doubt there is a simple explanation, but it has escaped me. What resources will he taken into account? Clause 4(2)(c) refers to
any income not consisting of money.
What does that mean? I do not suppose that people in the jute, weaving, flax or


bacon curing industries to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred have any "perks". The agricultural labourer receives a wage of only £15. Will any of his "perks" be taken into account?
When dealing with national superannuation Measures, we have had long and weary discussions about what should be included as income for superannuation purposes. Will the arguments used then be used to exclude people on the ground that "perks" are part of income, although not wages in the direct sense?
I hope that we shall have a fairly wide-ranging debate on a matter about which we require much more information. I should like to know what thinking, if any, has been done about it and the reasons behind some of the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 which cause us concern.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. Dean: We have had a very interesting debate on this important question of the prescribed limits and about whether there should be a cut-off point. All hon. Members who have spoken have admitted that very little is known about the possible effects of incentives, which are clearly relevant to the Amendments. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), in his usual very fair way, admitted that his mind was open about the incentive or disincentive effect of what he was proposing, and he said that he would listen to the debate. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) also mentioned that very little is known about the way in which his proposal would operate in practice with regard to the motivation for people who are, or might be, in full-time work. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made the same sort of point, in this case in favour of a £3 limit.
5.0 p.m.
I freely admit that very little is known. What we know is that the families whom we are dealing with in the Bill are in full-time work. In spite of the fact that their earnings from full-time work are below the supplementary benefit level, they are in full-time work. In other words, they have a high motivation. It might well

be said that were they to calculate, as we can calculate, the incentive or disincentive effect, they would not be in full-time work. It may well be, therefore, that there is a motivation operating here about which at present we know very little. One of the by-products of the scheme is that we hope to learn a great deal more about it than we know at present. The Government and I share the lack of knowledge which has been expressed in the debate. It suggests however, that, at least to begin with, we should proceed with caution.
The effect of Amendment No. 20, moved by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, would be to alter the taper from one-half to two-thirds. The immediate difficulty which might arise is that in so far as there is at present a taper of 50 per cent.—and, therefore, one could say that there is that amount of disincentive—the effect of the Amendment would be to increase it from 50 per cent. to 66⅔ per cent. On the point made by the hon. Member himself about disincentives, that may well be an argument against proceding that far, at least until we learn more from experience about the way in which the scheme is likely to work. That is one of the big problems of both the hon. Member's Amendment and also of Amendment No. 21 in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will feel that it is better to keep the question under review, as my right hon. Friend has said that we firmly intend to do, to accept what, we admit, is something of a compromise figure—namely, 50 per cent.—to start with that and see how it works in practice; and if, in practice, we find that there are the hardship effects which have been mentioned in the debate and the disincentive effects—which may operate, but we do not know whether they will—are not operating, the figure can be altered in regulations under the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 21 concerning the removal of the maximum limit. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North made the point, and it was made also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that one of the effects of having a limit is that it bears most hardly upon large families. I accept that this may be the effect. On the other hand,


however, that does not follow, because the figure which matters most is the actual earnings of the family concerned. This is much more important in this connection than the number of children.
To give an example concerning the six-child family, the make-up level would be £25 of which family allowances would be £4 18s. and other income at most £20 2s. The shortfall to produce the maximum £3 family income supplement is £6. Thus the only families with six children who would benefit from a higher maximum would be those whose gross earnings were under £14 2s. I admit that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) cited a family with under £14 2s.. I freely admit that families of that kind—they are not many in number, but I agree that they exist—would benefit from a higher maximum than is proposed in the Bill.
The other point that I should like to make is the reason why the limit has been specified. The main reason for it is that we feel it necessary to have a limit, otherwise there is a danger of abuse. I do not put it higher than that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames mentioned my somewhat telescoped argument on Second Reading and I apologise to him for not being able to answer all his points on that occasion. He will, I think, realise that time was short and some of my time on that occasion was taken up.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a danger of abuse. Can he explain one thing about which I am not clear? What danger of abuse is there in not having a £3 limit which would not exist with a £3 limit for the income that a person gets under £3? I do not see that any new factor arises.

Mr. Dean: I am developing the point. I was suggesting that there is a danger of abuse if there is no limit. I do not put it higher than that. One of the things that could happen, for example, is collusion between a man and his employer. There could also be possible difficulties with some kinds of self-employment. It is largely to guard against this and the additional checking and controls which would be required that we felt it prudent to have a limit in the scheme. It may well be that as we gain experience in practice of the working of

the scheme, either the limit can be raised or it may not be required.
I assure the Committee, however, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who mentioned the point, that it is not for reasons of cost that the limit is included. The figures on which we are working are very limited and they are not entirely up to date. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to give a meaningful calculation about the cost that would be involved, but that is not the factor which is uppermost in our minds on this point.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that the reason is not cost but the dangers of collusion. If the object of the Bill is to help families in real poverty—and we give the Government all the benefit of the doubt that that is their aim—surely the Government should give them the money, not have a limit and, when it is found that there is collusion with an employer and people are abusing the system, then jump in. This could have been done easily under regulations. The hon. Gentleman surely does not think that he has given a sufficient reason for the limit.

Mr. Dean: I do not want to put too much weight on this particular argument, but we do feel about all the proposals in this Bill and regulations under it that, if we are to maintain simplicity of approach in getting this scheme off the ground as soon as we possibly can, then there are some restrictions of this kind which will be desirable in the interests of avoiding abuse. The last position we want to get into—and this really answers the hon. Gentleman's point—is the position where abuse creeps into the scheme, where the practice of it comes under criticism, and where we have to tighten up the regulations. That is the last thing we want. We much prefer to get the scheme off the ground as quickly as we can, and to err, if necessary, on the side of caution, to begin with, and then increase the limits, and not to have regulations which are not actually required.
That, therefore, is the main reason. The Committee may say that we are erring a little on the side of caution here, but I think it is desirable, in the circumstances, to do so, but I want to emphasise to the Committee that a comparatively


small number of people would in fact benefit from the removal of the limit. It would be a comparatively small number of people. For example, very few two-parent families will be affected by the limit. For example, it would be altogether exceptional for a man genuinely in full-time work to have gross earnings of less than £9 a week which is a limit which affects the one-child family, and, of course, fatherless families have an alternative, the supplementary benefit. So I hope that the Committee will feel in these circumstances that it is wise, at any rate for the moment, to have this limit, always bearing in mind that there is power by regulations to alter it, to change it, in the light of experience.
Now let me turn to the other point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and that concerned the larger families. I think I have already explained, through the figures I have given, that what really matters here is not so much the number of children but the income coming into the household. That is the figure which really affects the position, and it is only in the case of a family whose earnings are under £14 2s. that the maximum figure we are proposing would in fact operate.
Turning now to the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and repeated in a slightly different form by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who mentioned the difficulties of income disregards, perhaps he feels and the Committee feels that it would be more convenient if we discussed the question of disregards in a later debate when the whole of this question would come up.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dean: With the actual definition of earnings and the examples which the hon. Gentleman gave, we are in some difficulty, in that the statistics on which we rely are not as full and complete as is desirable. There are whole areas here about which very little is known, much less than we would hope. This, again, is one of the advantages of this scheme, that it will bring us into direct touch with those low-earning families, and we shall learn as a result a great deal more

not only of their needs here but also of their needs in other fields.

Mr. Booth: Precisely on this point I extracted all the figures from publications of the Ministry of Employment whose new review gave wages changes right up to September. Therefore, the figures I gave were available to the Government.

Mr. Dean: Yes. The point I am going to make, though, is that many of the instances which the hon. Gentleman was giving were in terms of wage rates rather than actual earnings and family expenditure figures. I think that he would accept that what matters here is actual earnings and also the family expenditure figures, and it is in that regard, as I said, that we have not anything like as complete information as we would desire.
5.15 p.m.
I hope that the Committee will feel, having had a fairly long debate on these two interesting Amendments, that the Government's mind is certainly not closed. There have been some very valuable if rather tentative contributions made from both sides of the Committee. We intend to watch these figures extremely carefully, to learn by the light of experience and also the light of the interesting contributions which have been made in the debate.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman add just one comment to what he has said? He has clarified the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) about wage rates. How does he propose to put before the House information which he gets? There is no mention here of an annual report. How shall we get this information on earnings or where cases of low earnings exist?

Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking earlier—I think it was in the Second Reading debate—that he is extremely anxious that the House and the country should have, and that it is his intention that they should have as much information about the working of the scheme, and the take up, and the number of people who are involved, and the type of people who are involved, as we can possibly get.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one on either side of the Committee would complain of the tone of my hon. Friend's reply, but


I hope he will not mind my saying that the argument which he adduced about £3 limit, which has been the central issue of the debate, was a new one. It is not one of the three given to the House on Second Reading, nor even the lifeline cast to him, very chivalrously, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but a new one, and I think the Committee wants to weigh it.
My hon. Friend said this is necessary to prevent abuse. I think he will accept that that is the substance of what he said. I am not sure that that is an argument of self-evident truth. I suppose there is force in the suggestion that as the amount involved increases so the temptation, to a limited number of people, to abuse the scheme increases. I suppose there is a sort of scale at which people choose to do wrong—the larger the amount of the reward for wrongdoing may be. This may have force.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I would remind my right hon. Friend that it was the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor, in his speech on Second Reading, who said honesty was a question of the amount of the temptation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend adopts the moral standards of that right hon. Gentleman.

Sir K. Joseph: I only quoted them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If there is anything which would alarm me about this Bill it is my right hon. Friend's present intervention!
However, it obviously has force, although I am not sure how much weight it really has. We are dealing with people at the bottom of the poverty scale. I wonder how one can calculate and say that people will not indulge in wrong practices if £2 19s. is involved but will fall into temptation when the £3 limit is passed. It really does seem a very arbitrary rule.
I can understand that my right hon. Friend does not want this scheme abused, and it is a scheme which, obviously, Members on both sides of the Committee interested in social security and with administrative experience will agree

is one which could be abused. At any rate this is a new argument.
To turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said. I think, with respect, that this is a better case than his, because his argument was that the various items in kind when added to the payments under the Bill could rise to the sort of level at which people could be expected to get very good earnings figures. If that is true where the half difference between the supplement and family income is more than £3, it is equally going to be true when it is less. That, I do not think, justifies the £3 limit.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary adopted a conciliatory attitude on this. He said it was an experiment. He drew my attention to this—I would be grateful if he would confirm it, if only by a nod of the head—that the £3 limit could be taken out altogether by regulations made under subsection (4) of the Clause. Is that right? If my hon. Friend could so indicate when he has had a chance to look at the Bill it might help us.

Mr. Dean: It could both be increased and taken out altogether.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are some who believe that this may cause hardship, but none of us would wish to lay down the law about that against the experience of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Can we make sure that the House of Commons is informed about how this works, so that not only the attention of my right hon. Friend but that of the House of Commons can be focused on this.
Will my right hon. Friend, in such form as is convenient to him, either by way of Written Answer or by laying a Paper, after the scheme has been operating for six months or a year, inform the House of Commons of the number of cases in which the £3 limit has operated to prevent the payment which would otherwise have been made, and the amounts involved. If this is a precautionary limit which will not affect many people, it will not be much of a burden. If it is a burden because there are so many cases, the matter becomes infinitely more serious. If my hon. Friend will say to the Committee that his right hon. Friend will give this information,


many of us will be greatly helped, and will know, if our fears turn out to be justified, we shall be able to press my right hon. Friend for remedial action and the exercise of his powers under subsection (4).

Mr. Pardoe: The reasons which we have heard for the £3 limit are in no way convincing. The Under-Secretary said that a family with six children would have to have an income of £14 2s. for the £3 to apply, and he seemed to imply that there were so few of these families that they were not worth bothering about. Admittedly, to take the combination of six children and £14 2s. may be stretching the point, but throughout the country there is a large number of families earning less than £14 2s. I will simply direct him to "Incomes Data Panorama, July 1967 to June 1970", from which he will see that there are many people whose rates of pay are below this level. If he goes a little further west than his own constituency—where the prosperity of Portishead may be having its effect—into South-West Devon and Cornwall, he will find a large number of people with incomes below this level.

Mr. Dean: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The example and the figures I quoted were for a low earning family with six children. It is the combination of the two, low earnings and a large family.

Mr. Pardoe: Yes, but it just does not happen that low earning income groups have small families. If the man were economic in every sense of the word that would happen, but unfortunately it often goes the other way.
If the limit affects so few people, why not discard it? These people, few though they may be, are worth arguing for this afternoon. I understand, Mr. Mallalieu, that you will allow us to vote separately on Amendment 21. These people are not only worth arguing for but are worth voting for, and I hope a large number of hon. Members will support me.

Mr. Dean: I will deal quickly with one or two specific questions which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked me. I will first slightly correct a point which I made in an intervention to him. I said that the £3 limit could

be removed altogether. In fact, it can be raised right through the roof, and that amounts to much the same thing. It cannot be removed altogether, but it can be raised to a limit which would, in effect, erase it altogether.
My right hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to provide information generally on the working of the scheme and in particular about the number of people on whom the £3 limit would bite. The answer is "Yes". My right hon. Friend is anxious to provide this information and, indeed, as much information as possible. It will probably take longer than six months before we have meaningful information, but it is the intention to provide such information.

Mr. O'Malley: I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary. He has been driven into strange arguments in his attempt to defend the Bill. He said that little is known about what constitutes incentives and disincentives. I thought that this was one of the main planks of Tory taxation policy. I can imagine one of my hon. Friends on the back benches putting down a Question to the Prime Minister asking whether or not the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in Committee on 18th November represents Government policy.
Secondly, the Under-Secretary said that there was a danger of abuse. When I asked him how the danger of abuse was magnified by the removal of the £3 limit he gave me a non-answer. Thirdly, he suggested that it was simpler to leave it as it is. In fact, it is not it is more complicated. Fourthly, he admitted that the people who would benefit would be those earning under £14 2s. a week. Taking that in conjunction with his reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the provision can be changed by regulations, I should have thought that the equitable thing to do would be to accept the Amendment rather than to argue against it as he did.
I think the hon. Gentleman will not deny that the real reason for his rejection of the Amendment has virtually nothing to do with the arguments he has adduced. His Department has been given its strict instructions by the Treasury not to go beyond the £8·6 million


limit. Since the hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, we intend to press it to a Division.

Mr. Peter Archer: Striving as I still am to suggest improvements to a bad Bill, I invite the Under-Secretary to think about what he has just said in relation to regulations under Clause 3(4). If the only way in which he can later deal with the situation imposed by the limitation is by increasing the amount to an absurd figure such as £1 million, would not it be better for him to avoid getting himself into that difficulty?
This has been an enlightening debate. I said at the beginning that I approached the principal matter with an open mind and that I did not seek to be dogmatic. I am now much more dogmatic, and my mind is virtually closed. It may be that my assessment of incentives represents

nothing more than prejudice, but I have heard nothing to displace it. However, I appreciate that there are considerations relating to cut-off which do not necessarily apply to the proportion. If a test of the feeling of the Committee is to be taken, it had better be on the question of the cut-off rather than the proportion.

Accordingly, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 20.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'but shall not in any case exceed £3'.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 201.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Ashton, Joe
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnes, Michael
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Bannett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hardy, Peter
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer Eric s.
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Delargy, H. J.
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Sillars, James


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Tavern, Dick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)




Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tomney, Frank
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James



Tuck, Raphael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Urwin, T. W.
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. John Golding.


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Haselhurst Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Batsford, Brian
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Havers, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boscawen, R. T.
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sinclair, Sir George


Coombs, Derek
Kershaw, Anthony
Soref, Harold


Cooper, A. E.
Kilfedder, James
Spence, John


Cordle, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Crouch, David
Lambton, Antony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Stokes, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sutcliffe, John


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tapsell, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Tilney, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Moate, Roger
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Worsley, Marcus


Gorst, John
Money, Ernie
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector



Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Mr. Walker Clegg and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Mr. Keith Speed.


Gummer, Selwyn

Amendment No. 66 made: In line 9, leave out from 'vary' to end of subsection and insert:

'the proportion and increase the amounts for the time being specified in this section'.—[Mr. Dean.]

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 2, line 10, at end to add:
(5) Where the weekly rate falls to be reduced on a subsequent claim as a result of an increase in the family's resources, the reduction shall not be such that, taken together with the effect of that increase on the amount of any other benefits, rebates or exemptions, it reduces the value of the increase by more than 0–75 in every £1.
I am grateful that on reconsideration this Amendment has been called since it raises the whole question of the overall impact of the total accumulation of disincentives, and I believe that the Amendment is of the greatest importance for the operation of the Bill. I therefore hope the Government will regard this matter sympathetically.
It augurs wells for the Amendment that the Under-Secretary, in summing up the previous group of Amendments, rejected one Amendment on the ground that it would involve a marginal tax levy of 66⅔ per cent., which he regarded as too high. The aim of this Amendment is to prohibit a marginal tax levy in excess of the 75 per cent. I therefore assume that the Government, if they wish to be consistent, will agree to my Amendment.
Let me illustrate the significance of the Amendment by drawing attention to the effect of the interaction between family income supplement and one single other means-tested benefit, namely rate rebate. For any size of family with two parents, the income limit for a rate rebate is 15s. per week below the F.I.S. prescribed amount, and for a one-parent family is as much as £3 below. If the prescribed amounts are raised before the F.I.S. scheme comes into operation in 1971, as the Secretary of State has hinted, the gap will grow even wider. This means that families just above the income limit for a full rate rebate will both have their rate rebate reduced by 5s. for every extra £1 of income above the limit, and lose 10s. of F.I.S. for each additional pound in the same income range. Thus, in terms of benefit forgone, these two means tests alone will represent a tax rate of 15s. in the pound for a large number of families.
5.45 p.m.
This is serious enough, but it is infinitely worse if we include, as we must, the whole plethora of other national and

local means-tested benefits. Admittedly, most of the other national means tests, such as those for school meals and exemptions from Health Service charges, are pitched at a slightly more generous level and involve somewhat higher cutoff points. But there will often be local means-tested benefits which will be reduced or cut off at the same level of income as rate rebates. I am thinking of rent rebate, school uniform grants and educational maintenance allowances. In such cases the combined marginal tax rate will be very much in excess of 75 per cent.
In addition, each extra £1 of income will be subject to a further proportional levy because of national insurance contribution. Even beyond this, there will be cases where income tax will be payable by claimants of F.I.S. A family whose income is above the prescribed amount in the first six months of the tax year and then falls below it will still qualify for F.I.S. but at the same time will be liable to tax at the standard rate on each additional £1 of income.
To make this situation clearer, let me illustrate the cumulative effect of these contingencies in a single typical case. Let us take the case of a married man with three children who by dint of harder work, more overtime, or more generous piece-work earnings improves his pay from £15 to £18 a week. At this new level—and I admit that the exact position depends on the locality—he stands to lose about 15s. in school meals, 13s. 4d. in rent rebates, 15s. in rate rebates, and at the same time he will have to pay an extra 2s. 10d. in graduated national insurance contributions, representing a combined levy of 46s. 2d. out of £3, which means a marginal tax levy of 15s. 4d. in the pound.
If F.I.S. is added to this, the total levy rises to 68s. 2d. out of £3, or 22s. 9d. in the pound. If one of the children is aged between 15 and 18 and if that child is still in full-time education and the family is claiming educational maintenance allowance, the total levy actually rises to around 80s. out of £3, or 27s. in the pound. This is a preposterous situation. But it may be argued that a small proportion of families eligible for educational maintenance allowance actually claim it. It may also be said that the man in my example lives in one of the many


areas of the country where a rent rebate of any generous nature is not available, although the scheme recently propounded by the Secretary of State for the Environment will soon alter this situation. But, for the purposes of debate, I accent these limitations on my argument, although I would insist that it is the framework of benefits that are open to the public to claim, rather than what is actually claimed, to which we should address our minds. Even accepting these restrictions, the levy in my example, excluding rent rebate and educational maintenance allowance, will still be 54s. 10d. out of £3, or 18s. 3d. in the pound. To this sum F.I.S. has contributed 7s. 4d. in the pound.
It will be clearly seen from this example that the poor are far worse off than the rich in the matter of incentives and that, in spite of the considerable emotional heat that has been generated on the other side of the House, about incentives, far more attention has been given to incentives to highly-paid executives rather than to what under these proposals will be a disincentive to a far greater number of low-paid workers on the shop floor. Even at the highest point of the income tax scale, the new marginal rate on earned income, bearing in mind the two-ninths earned income tax relief, never exceeds 17s. 9d. in the pound, while a maximum marginal levy of 15s. in the pound, which is the object of this Amendment, is not reached on the earned income tax scale until the very high salary level of around £11,000 a year. It is too much to say that there should be a direct comparison between high marginal rates for both rich and poor because the rich also get considerable fruits of a large gross income in terms of extensive accrued pension entitlements, lucrative widows' entitlements and also high status. None of these offsets is available to the poor and, therefore, the effects upon them of an extremely high marginal levy are all the worse.
There is an inescapable argument for a marked reduction in what constitutes an utterly inadmissible burden of disincentives at the bottom of the income scale, such as we are considering under the Bill. The Government may argue that this position may arise only if a series of means-tested benefits are claimed and that this is unlikely. If means-tested bene-

fits were considered to be an unsatisfactory method of delivering services to poor families, I am glad that the Government are blocking up this escape route in two ways. The first is by the admirable intention on the part of the Secretary of State to make eligibility for F.I.S. an automatic passport for eligibility to exemption from the other increased charges, such as higher prescription charges and ophthalmic and dental charges.

Sir K. Joseph: From the charges themselves, if we can—not just the higher element in them.

Mr. Meacher: I entirely accept that. The other way is by an increased advertising budget, designed to increase the take-up of at least the rate rebates, and I think the same for F.I.S. as well, although I am not clear about that—

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the Secretary of State is nodding. While commending the purpose of both these Measures, I am sure that the Government must also agree that they will grossly aggravate the whole problem of disincentives discussed under the Amendment, because the higher the uptake, the more people who will have more to lose.
For all these reasons, I trust that the case for easing the disincentives for the low-paid workers will be seen to be both plausible and convincing. What the Amendment seeks is far from an ideal settlement, but at least it would prevent an intolerable situation getting completely out of hand. In this vein, I hope that the Government will give it the sympathetic consideration that I believe it deserves.

Mr. John Roper: I should like briefly to support the Amendment. One of the many disadvantages of the Bill, which the Amendment seeks to remove, is the addition to the disincentives that it imposes on the low paid. Earlier today, the Under-Secretary admitted the ignorance of his Department about the disincentive effects of different parts of this Measure on the low paid. He referred to it as an experiment to discover the strength of motivation of people in full-time work with low incomes.

Mr. Dean: This is true of everyone—not just the Department.

Mr. Roper: But it is odd that there is so much certainty about incentive or disincentive effects at high levels of income, but so much ignorance about the incentive or disincentive effect of these low incomes.
There has been a certain amount of work on this already. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) referred in an earlier debate to the paper by Professor Prest, the Hobart Paper published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which analysed the effect of this multiplicity of means tests, which will be added to by the family income supplement. Similarly, Professor Kaim-Caudle has done a certain amount of work on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to the marginal tax levy, and I think that he was referring to the high marginal loss of social benefits for people in this situation as a result of the multiplicity of means tests. I hope that the Government will consider the Amendment seriously and will not think it necessary to carry their scientific research into the motivation of those on low incomes to a greater extent than a marginal loss of social benefits of 15s. in the £. Therefore, I hope that they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) admitted that the solution which he suggested was not ideal, and I entirely agree with that. In fact, it was very much an underestimate. What he was doing in drawing attention to a problem which certainly exists, as is clear from our earlier debates, is to take a very extreme case. There would be very few cases in which all these tests would operate together and have the sort of impact which he suggested on any particular family.
In particular, most of the tests would operate at higher income levels than the family income supplement level. In typical cases, a family entitled to F.I.S. whose income is increased by £3 a week would still be eligible for full remissions in respect of school meals, prescription charges, welfare foods and optical and dental charges. So there would be very few cases in which the full impact of the cost that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would operate.

Mr. Meacher: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is precisely the

fact that F.I.S. will act as a passport for remission of other charges which will itself increase the disincentive to move above the F.I.S. level in order to rely on ordinary earnings?

Mr. Dean: There is a disincentive operating here—and this is admitted—but we do not know to what extent. This is an area where little is known about incentives and disincentives. But my point is that the sort of example which the hon. Member has quoted amounts to an overstating of his case. It is so extreme that he spoils what starts off as a reasonable argument on a problem which we admit exists.
But there are also practical difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It would mean that on all claims but the first, we would have to ask for full details of the various benefits and rebates a family has to be able to make a complete calculation, comparing the position at the time of the earlier claim with that at the time of the later claim. This would add greatly not only to the administrative burdens involved but also to those of the families concerned.
So it is both for the first reason I gave and also for the practical reason that this Amendment is not acceptable. Where one has many forms of help, this type of problem is likely to arise. But this wide question which the hon. Member has raised is one of which the Government are very conscious, and which we are considering, of course, in the measures that we are taking to deal with this problem and the problem of family poverty as a whole.

Mr. O'Malley: The Under-Secretary says that the Amendment is not acceptable. I would advise my hon. Friends that I do not find his arguments acceptable or convincing. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) wishes to press the Amendment to a Division, I would advise my hon. Friends to support him in the Lobby.

Mr. Meacher: I should like to reply to the points made, if they were really intended as substantial objections to the Amendment. It is suggested that it is very unlikely that several of these means tests would be taken together. I have already said that for most local and national means tests it remains the case


that the cut-off point is at about the same level as for F.I.S.; so persons on F.I.S. will have an added disincentive to move their earnings to a higher level, not only because they will lose F.I.S., which is a substantial disincentive by itself, but because of the accumulation of all these other benefits.
It is untrue to say that they will not occur at the same level. I should like to hear the Under-Secretary's view on the impact of the expensive advertising campaign which the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to launch—£600,000 to be spent to improve the take-up on rate rebates. I would estimate that we might have an advertising budget for F.I.S. of around £250,000 or some similar figure. Perhaps it is lower than that. If we take the advertising budget of the two together, it will not be far short of £1 million.
It is bound to improve the take-up and it will aggravate the whole problem of disincentives. In trying to do the right thing in increasing the take-up, the Government are getting themselves into increasing logical toils. I suggest that the Under-Secretary either does not see the problem or is making no attempt to find a proper way out of it.
Second, the hon. Gentleman says that there is uncertainty, that we do not know enough about what constitutes a disincentive.

Sir K. Joseph: At this level of income.

Mr. Meacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest, even at this level of income, that a 75 per cent. loss of earnings is not a very potent disincentive? Is there any level, however low, where that is not the case? Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that we must have a controlled piece of research? It is often said of sociology that the aim is to prove the obvious. Must we have a piece of sociological research to indicate that a 75 per cent. loss of earning is not a massive disincentive?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would my hon. Friend agree with what seems, to me at any rate, to be common sense: that the lower the income level the greater the disincentive of a very small sum?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that point. I entirely accept it.
For both these reasons, and in the absence of any substantial arguments against the Amendment, I should indeed like to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 191.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[6.1 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamling, William


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Joel
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Beaney, Alan
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Dinnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foot, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Freeson, Reginald
Lambie, David


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamond, James


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Garrett, W. E.
Latham, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David
Lawson, George


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Leonard, Dick


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)




Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCann, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Taverne, Dick


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McElhone, Frank
Probert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rankin, John
Torney, Tom


Mackie, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackintosh, John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints]


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'nor)
Wallace, George


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Philip


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Malley, Brian
Sillars, James
Woof, Robert


Oram, Bert
Skinner, Dennis



Orbach, Maurice
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orme, Stanley
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. John Golding.


Oswald, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Astor, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Benyon, W.
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gurden, Harold
Molyneaux, James


Boscawen, R. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernie


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Braine, Bernard
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monro, Hector


Brewis, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Burden, F. A.
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kllfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fair, John
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Sranbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Gardner, Edward
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)







Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Warren, Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Tebbit, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Younger, Hn. George


Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Keith Speed.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

RESOURCES TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

Mr. Joel Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'except where regulations otherwise provide'.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to accept my first Amendment yesterday and I feel sure, knowing that this is an equally reasonable Amendment, that he will accept this one, too.
The Clause is a vital one, dealing, as it does, with disregards, and the Amendment relates to whether the Minister should have power to include, by regulations, the income of a child. One appreciates that, generally, a Minister needs powers to do things by regulation, but this is rather different because if the Bill is left as it is the Minister will be able to alter the provisions of the Bill and include the income of a child, either in whole or in part.
On what grounds, and in what circumstances, would the Minister wish, by regulation, to include a child's income? If there are only very few instances in which a child's income should be aggregated for this purpose, the right hon. Gentleman does not need the power given to him by the regulations. If this power is to be used only occasionally, there is all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should come back to the House to seek the powers that he would need to include a particular type of child's income. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to explain in some detail why he would need to aggregate a child's income in those circumstances.
Everyone must be aware of the great difficulties that could arise if a child's income were aggregated for F.I.S. purposes. A child could be earning a small sum, but that amount could nevertheless, be sufficient to exclude that family from

F.I.S. and that could have the effect of driving that youngster out of the house. Surely that is not what the Minister and the Committee have in mind. Surely the Minister would not want to include a child's investment income, or income resulting from compensation for injuries, or income from a small amount of savings, or money received from a grandparent? I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Committee would want to aggregate the income of a child under those circumstances.
It is interesting to note the approach of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, now that they are the Government, to the poorer sections of the community, compared with their attitude when they were the Opposition and expressed their opinion about the aggregation of a child's income for income tax purposes. There were some interesting debates in the Committee on the Finance Bill in 1968 when we discussed the question of aggregating a child's income with that of a family paying surtax.
I shall not bore the House with quotations at length, but it is interesting to recall some of the remarks made at that time, because they are particularly relevant to this whole question of the aggregation of a child's income. It is interesting to compare the attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite today with their attitude in 1968. On 15th May, 1968 the late Iain Macleod said:
It is not only full of anomalies, but it is an attack upon savings, an attack, perhaps in particular, upon those in the middle income groups, and some of its consequences will be disastrous and tragic.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th May, 1968: c. 849.]
I did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right.
Many families to whom the Bill is intended to apply will suffer considerably if it contains a provision that some types of children's income can be aggregated. Many more tragic circumstances were brought to our notice during those debates in 1968. We were told about


thalidomide children who had some income which could be aggregated for surtax purposes. Could that income be aggregated by the Minister under the proposed regulations? I suppose it could. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would do that, but it could be done under the regulations.
6.15 p.m.
Some strong words were used in 1968 by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are now Members of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister for Transport Industries used words which we expected from him. He told us how cruel it was to deal in that way with the children of families in this category, and let us bear in mind that we were talking about families who were trying, under the law as it stood, to avoid particular levels of surtax. That is not quite the same as the kind of family that we are dealing with here. If right hon. Gentlemen felt so strongly about aggregation in those circumstances, I should have thought that it was incumbent upon them now that they are the Government, to accept the Amendment and show that they feel at least as strongly about families and children at the lower end of the scale.
If, as we have been told repeatedly, the idea is to make this provision as simple as possible so that not only we in the House understand it, but that it is understood by those who will be involved in making claims, the Minister should accept the Amendment. After all, the Government will spend tens of thousands of pounds on trying to make this provision clear to ordinary people.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. Barnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government are not going to spend tens of thousands of pounds on making the position clear?

Sir K. Joseph: A lot of money, but certainly not tens of thousands of pounds.

Mr. Barnett: The right hon. Gentleman may need to spend that much money to make the meaning of the Bill clear to the people who will be eligible to claim under it. The Preamble to the Bill tells us that the entitlement will be based on a simple test. If that is so, and if the Minister wants to make provision easily understood he should accept the

Amendment and make it clear that no income of a child will be included for the purposes of aggregation. If, at some future date, the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring in a particular type of child's income because there is some kind of evasion, it will be possible for him to do that. To leave in this provision with the possibility of amendment by regulation runs directly counter to the right hon. Gentleman's whole idea of making the whole thing simple for the people involved to understand.
The impression that one gets from subsection (1) is that those who are to claim can generally disregard a child's income. If the regulations are intended to alter that, the least the Minister should do is to tell us in what circumstances he will make a change in this provision. If this is not a deliberate attempt to hide behind the Regulations, the Committee ought to be told. If we do not get a proper answer from the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that we should press the matter to a Division.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Mr. James Dempsey: I want the Minister to address himself to certain anomalies that seem likely to arise if he is bent on this course. To aggregate certain incomes would be rather mean on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. We are talking here about young people. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case of young persons who reach the acceptable age and are responsible for the delivery of milk before going to school in the mornings? I should like to know whether their incomes will be aggregated for this purpose or whether the Minister can say that income of that nature will be disregarded. That question ought to be cleared up before we dispose of the Amendment.
Further, there are young persons who serve the community in other ways during the permitted hours. In my part of the world, at least, these young persons deliver morning rolls. Their work is part-time, but they receive weekly earnings. Is it the intention to aggregate that form of earnings in applying the scale? The right hon. Gentleman must give thought to that question.
There is the whole question of seasonal employment. I do not know what happens in the south, but in the north we make a special appeal, through the schools, for young people of the approved age to assist in potato harvesting. Without their assistance it would be extraordinarily difficult to bring in the potato harvest. For their work these young people receive a certain amount of money, and I should like to know whether that element would be aggregated. If so, in many cases—especially in the case of those eligible for F.I.S.—it would be a decided disincentive for these young people to give such a service. It is not easy work; in fact, it is a back-breaking job. If the Bill is to operate properly the Minister must come clean and tell us whether such earnings will be aggregated.
Other activities that I want to mention include berry picking. That is a seasonal operation which attracts young people, including those of the permitted school age. In that case, too, young people are unlikely to take part in such activities if the result is a reduction of their entitlement to F.I.S.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department must have given some thought to these matters. I should like an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman so that we know where he stands on them. It would appear obvious to all that to take account of this type of income and not to disregard it would be not only mean but miserable. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman explains the real intention of this part of the Bill he will answer the questions that I have raised. It is extremely difficult to interpret some aspects of the Bill, and the one with which I am now dealing is one with which I have found myself at cross purposes. I am completely unclear about the intention of these provisions.
If income of this nature is not to be disregarded I do not see how anybody can support this legislation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore have regard to my arguments and will study closely the implications of what I have said. I hope that when he replies he will be able to tell the Committee whether my fears are well-grounded.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman from making what will obviously be a very sympathetic reply. He has not had much opportunity to do so until now. I want to add briefly to the categories of case that my hon. Friend has outlined—the case of young people who may still be at school, receiving full-time education, but who work on Saturdays. Sometimes the contribution made by such young people is not significant in terms of the total income of the family; the work is done to enable the young persons to participate in extra-school activity, or to have a holiday, or to do something that is extremely desirable. Taking up part-time work is the only way in which such young people, if they are members of a low-wage-earning family, can benefit in this way.
I am sure that the Minister is bursting to reassure the Committee on the matter. I hope that at the same time he will be able to give us some idea whether he will exclude income of the kind to which I am referring, and, if so, what income he will include.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to hon. Members opposite for sympathising with my desire to call off the bombardment, if I can. The Government have no intention whatsoever of using regulations to bring into account any of the sorts of income or earnings of children, to which hon. Members have referred. The only reason for keeping the power to make regulations is to cover the situation if we find that there is abuse. A situation might arise in which parents deliberately arranged that some of the income due to them was put into the name of one of their children. If that happened we should have to take it seriously, because it would be inequitable as between one household that did not do it and another that did.
It is simply in order to protect the public purse against abuse of that or a similar sort that I wish to keep this regulating power in the Bill. I hope that that will give some satisfaction to hon. Members.

Mr. McNamara: I appreciate the sympathy with which the right hon. Gentleman has met us on this point. Nevertheless, there are two points which


do not arise under the category of case that has been mentioned. The first concerns boarding-out allowances for foster children. In certain cases the allowance that comes in in respect of foster children could take the family income beyond the level of F.I.S. As that money is paid for the upkeep of a child, would it be regarded as income for the child or income for the foster parents, which might therefore take them out of F.I.S.?
My other point concerns money paid into a household by way of maintenance allowance to children whose parents have been divorced or have separated and are living in different households. The money is paid for the maintenance of the children, but there may be other children in the household and the money coming in may take the family beyond the limit. I agree that it can be argued that in these cases the money is paid to the parent, but it is paid specifically for the maintenance of children. Therefore, it takes them out of the F.I.S. limit. With regard to the limitation that we have already laid down for six children, these could be important points.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Meacher: May I revert to the last remark of the Secretary of State, when he mentioned possible abuse? It is significant that he used the word "abuse" to describe a situation in which income coming to the parent was deliberately put into the account of the child.

Sir K. Joseph: No, where money earned by the parent was treated as earned by the child. We are not talking of a donation, if that is the right word, from a parent to a child. It is where a stream of income earned by the parent is put into the child's name, purely because the child's income is disregarded.

Mr. Meacher: Is that entirely compatible with the intention as revealed in an answer I had yesterday, to do away with the parent-child aggregation whereby money is quite deliberately fed to the child in order to escape a much higher rate of income tax, either for the grandparent or the parent, which is used particularly by rich parents to secure a taxpayer-granted education for their child at a public school?

Mr. Barnett: I found the right hon. Gentleman's reply far from satisfactory.

He did not reply at all to the points of my hon. Friends. He just said that he accepted all they said but would not intend to use the regulations to do what they had in mind. Then, with the whole paraphernalia of the Government at his disposal, the only example of abuse that he could give as his reason for refusing the Amendment was one whereby parents would allow some of their income to be treated as the income of their child.
This tells us a great deal about the right hon. Gentleman's thinking. If he imagines that this type of person has the sort of income which he can somehow or other divert and call his child's, I am afraid that he is still thinking of the surtax payer to whom my hon. Friend referred. It is surprising that the only abuse that he could unearth was this one. If he has more, I should be pleased to hear them. But if this is the only example, if he accepted the Amendment and there were then many cases in which this abuse applied, it would be simple for him to come to the House and ask for regulations. Without that sort of evidence, he has not satisfield the Committee, and I would certainly press my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is determined to have a battle here, but it was he, the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who instanced a situation in which the child might have some investment income. I never conceived of such a possibility for an F.I.S. family. I am postulating a situation in which a parent does an item of work and says, "Make the pay ment to my child for the work." That could conceivably happen. If it happened systematically, we should have to take it into account. That is the sort of possibility that I have in mind in retaining the regulating power.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: What would be the position in the case which frequently happens—that of a child star or model paying his mother as a secretary?

Sir K. Joseph: Then we should be outside the FIS galaxy; that is all I can say.
If the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton and his hon. Friends wish to have a battle—fine, but not because we on this side believe that F.I.S. families


will have large dividend income to divert to any member of the family they wish.

Mr. Barnett: I was only saying that we will bear the right hon. Gentleman's argument in mind when we come to consider aggregation for surtax purposes which the Chancellor suggests he will abolish.

Meanwhile, I will certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press this to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139. Noes 183.

Division No. 28.
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Malley, Brian


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Bert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Pentland, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Perry, Ernest G.


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Beaney, Alan
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Prescott, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Probert, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Horam, John
Rankin, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Booth, Albert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rose, Paul


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James
Skinner Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McCann, John
Tuck, Raphael


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Edwin


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Wallace, George


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Faulds, Andrew
McManus, Frank
Whitehead, Philip


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilson, William (Coventry)


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy



Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythtnshawe)
Mr. John Golding.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crowder, F. P.


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Churchill, W. S.
Dean, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Benyon, W.
Clegg, Walter
Dixon, Piers


Biffen, John
Cockeram, Eric
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Coombs, Derek
Eyre, Reginald


Boscawen, R. T.
Cooper, A. E.
Farr, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cordle, John
Fell, Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.
Fidler, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Critchley, Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Crouch, David
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)




Fookes, Miss Janet
Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert


Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, East)


Foster, Sir John
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fowler, Norman
Lam, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Gardner, Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gorst, John
MacArthur, Ian
Shetton, William (Clapham)


Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Gray, Hamish
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Gurden, Harold
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anhony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sutcliffe, John


Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernie
Tebbit, Norman


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Holt, Miss Mary
Mornro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Turton, Rt Hn. R. H.


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Waddington, David



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodnutt, Mark


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian



Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 14, at end insert:
'or other member of the said family under the age of eighteen'.
Before we come to the batch of big Amendments, as it were, this is one on which I intend to speak briefly. It is of a somewhat exploratory nature. The purpose of the Amendment in the first place was to cover the position of those in full-time education. From the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) on Friday, I gather that this will be covered. I should like reassurance on that.
The other problem with which the Amendment is concerned is one which the Supplementary Benefits Commission has already come across. It is the problem that by taking into account the earnings of boys and girls who have just left school

there are cases in which the effect of it is to drive the boys and girls in question away from home. They go and live with their grandmother, or somewhere else. To drive a family apart at a time when the children still need the care of the parents is not the result which we wish to achieve.
I realise that if there is a total disregard of earnings, however high, this might raise difficulties within the scheme as a whole. Therefore, this Amendment should be read together with Amendment No. 30, which mentions a figure of £2. This is a serious problem. The F.I.S. scheme will make it worse. I should appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the particular problem with which the Amendment is concerned and also reassurance on the first point.

Sir K. Joseph: On the first point, I can give the Committee the assurance required that full-time education up to the ending of the secondary school leaving age will be covered. That is to say, the


adolescent remains a child for the purposes of F.I.S.
I am not quite sure that I have fully grasped the implications of the second point put. I shall have to study it and give an answer to a written Question, if I may, because I cannot give a categorical assurance from the Box now.

Mr. Taverne: I am not sure that a Written Answer is a suitable way in which to give an answer. I wonder if, in some way, the right hon. Gentleman could give some sort of answer at Report.

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 16, after 'shall', insert:
'subject to the following provisions of this section'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we are to take the following Amendments: Amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'manner' to end of line 26 and add:
'as is now used by the Inland Revenue'.
Amendment No. 28, in line 23, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 29, in line 26, at end add:
(3) For the purposes of this Act money paid by a widower to a person for caring for his children shall be disregarded in calculating his gross income.
Amendment No. 30, in line 26, at end add:
(3) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded to the extent of the first £2 thereof any earnings (other than such as are excluded by virtue of sub-section 1 of this section) of any member of the said family who is not engaged in full-time remunerative work.
Amendment No. 31, in line 26, at end add:
(3) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded any sum paid or payable to any member of the said family by way of attendance allowance under section 4 of the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Act 1970.
Amendment No. 32, in line 26, at end add:
(3) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded a sum equivalent to

such sum (not exceeding £5 per week or such higher sum as may from time to time be provided by Regulations) as is being paid out of the said gross income to any person not being a member of the said family for services which relate to the care of the said household or of any member of the said family requiring such care.
Amendment No. 33, in line 26, at end add:
( ) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded any sum paid or payable to any member of such family by way of pension in respect of war service.
Amendment No. 34, in line 26, at end add:
( ) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded any sum paid or payable to any member of the said family by way of family allowance in respect of any child or children who is a member of the said family.
Amendment No. 35, in line 26, at end add:
( ) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded any sum paid or payable to any member of the said family by way of National Insurance benefits in respect of sickness or disability or industrial injury.
And Amendment No. 36, in line 26, at end add:
( ) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded any sum paid or payable to any member of the said family by virtue of section 1 of the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Act 1970.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: For the convenience of the Committee, we shall make speedier progress if I make some general remarks on the subject of disregards, which are the subject of virtually every Amendment we are discussing. Perhaps later in the debate some of my hon. Friends, both from the Front Benches and the back benches, will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Godman Irvine, to deal with particular Amendments in this group.
First, the Bill provides for some disregards. In Clause 4(2)(b), there is provision as follows:
for disregarding the whole or part of the income from any source specified in the regulations.
Since that time, however, we have had further guidance on the subject. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary was speaking about war pensions and war pension disregards, but he ranged wider than that when he said in reply to a query from the right hon. Member for


Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter):
As the responsible Minister, I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend, but I hope that he will appreciate, that if we are to keep the scheme simple, as we must, it is very difficult to introduce any form of disregard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 334.]
we were given further advice in reply to a Written Question on 13th November when the Secretary of State said:
Initially it is not proposed to exercise the powers conferred under Clause 4(2)(b) (disregarding the whole or part of the income from any source specified in the regulations) or (c) (treating capital resources and any income not consisting of money as equivalent to gross income of a specified amount)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 285.]
On the one hand the Under-Secretary saw no possibility of the introduction of disregards, because he wanted the scheme to be kept simple, and, on the other, we are told that it is not proposed initially to exercise the powers under paragraph (b). Apparently we are now in the situation in which there are to be no disregards whatever in the administration of the scheme.
The purpose of Amendment No. 28 is to leave out the paragraph which deals with capital resources. It was intended as a probing Amendment because we wished to inquire how capital was to be treated. We now understand that capital will not be treated at all. I appreciate that the vast majority, and perhaps all, of those concerned will not have capital resources, but legislation must take account of every conceivable kind of situation and I suppose that for that reason capital was included in the draft of Clause 4. Nevertheless, we should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information, both about the short-term treatment of capital that is, before paragraph (c) is brought into operation, and the longer-term treatment of capital once it is brought into operation.
I wish now to turn to the broad subject of disregards. The lowest paid, those who will receive the family income supplement, will sometimes receive an income below, even substantially below, the income which they would receive at supplementary benefit level. This has already been demonstrated. We are now to have a situation in which, because the recipient of supplementary benefit may have a dis-

regarded income, the lowest paid in work will be treated more harshly under one State social security scheme than another individual is treated under another State social security scheme.
Nor is it only the lowest paid who are affected. Even those with incomes somewhat above the lowest paid, but affected by the scheme, will be treated more harshly than, for example, unemployed people on supplementary benefit. I said last night that it is no answer to say that we must keep the scheme simple. It does not seem sensible to say that we know that it is unfair and unjust between one section and another and completely inequitable, but that we have the defence that we want to keep it simple. That is where the Government are falling down. The scheme is not simple, and it would be a much better scheme if the admittedly increased complexity of the assessment of disregards were added.
Anyone who has heard the debates of today and yesterday would find it difficult to say that the scheme was simple. We all admire the capacity of the Secretary of State and it may be a test of the simplicity of the scheme to invite him to say in not more than 50 words how he will put the proposition arising out of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to the general public. That would be an interesting demonstration of the simplicity of the scheme.
Amendment No. 29 deals with the widower with a number of children who has to pay someone to look after the children while he goes out to work. The Committee will agree that it is better that a man in this kind of situation, without the help which some get from grandmothers and other relatives, should be able to follow his employment and earn his livelihood rather than stay at home himself to look after his children, as sometimes, if rarely, occurs under the supplementary benefit scheme.
Amendment No. 30 is intended to provide the same conditions for the wife of a lowly paid man receiving F.I.S. as are permitted to the wife of a recipient of supplementary benefit. Under the supplementary benefit regulations, a wife may work part time and the first £2 of income are disregarded. Without such a disregard, there would be a strong disincentive against the wife going to work to improve the conditions of the family,


albeit marginally. The woman who wants to buy some Christmas presents for the kids is in precisely the kind of situation we have in mind. The supplementary benefits scheme recognises the need for mitigation by its disregards and there seems to be a substantial case for a similar disregard for the working "mum" in these circumstances.
It is not only the working mother who is affected. What about the young people living in the house and just over 16, the girl who is an apprentice hairdresser, for instance? I have always thought that the wages paid to some of these young girls as apprentice hairdressers were nothing short of scandalous. The supplementary benefit scheme disregards 20s. of this income. We do not want these young people to be in penury and they ought to be allowed at least a limited amount of the enjoyment and entertainment that young people of that age ought to have in the 1970s.
We are on strong ground with Amendment No. 31 which deals with attendance allowances. The Under-Secretary and I took part in long debates about attendance allowances. We were all at one about how desirable it was that they should be completely disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit. We were pleased to have broken new ground and there was no one who took a contrary view. We should feel justified in an angry approach if the Government decided not to do something about this group of people.

7.0 p.m.

Amendment No. 34 deals with the family allowance. In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? If family allowances are increased, and the terms of the Bill are not changed at the same time, it could happen that a family would receive increased family allowances at some stage in the future but they would not gain from the increase because their family income supplement would be reduced. What has he in mind there?

Amendment No. 35 deals with national insurance benefits in respect of sickness, disability or industrial injury. Again, disability pensions are disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes to the extent of £2. As regards sickness benefits,

will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the system will work? For example, if someone at work is assessed as entitled to family income supplement for a period of 26 weeks, and during that period he falls sick and starts receiving sickness benefit, how will the two knit together, and how will the scheme be administered?

Amendment No. 36 deals with old people in households, with particular reference to those who benefited under the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Act, 1970.

Finally—I deliberately leave it to the last—the question of war pensions. It has always been accepted in this country, and I hope that it will continue to be, that those who receive pensions in respect of injuries, wounds or disabilities sustained in time of war are in a special position. I am sure that this is accepted across the Floor and throughout the country. As recently as 23rd July this year, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in the other place:
Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the unique nature of the war pensions and allowances provided for those whose disablement or widowhood results from service in the Armed Forces, reaffirm their intention to preserve the tradition of giving special treatment to war pensioners and their widows, and undertake to review war pensions and allowances at two-yearly intervals …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 311, c. 1105–6.]

The important part of that passage is the reaffirmation that we give war pensioners a very special position. For example, the first £2 of such pensions is disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes, whereas—a recent example about which controversy flared was the miner's pension—only 20s. of other pension or superannuation is disregarded.

The sort of payment one has in mind included within the 539,000 pensions in payment at the end of 1969 is the constant attendance allowance. Up to £3 6s. for other ranks may be in payment even if the individual concerned has some employment. There are those who receive some kind of income because of the lowered standard of their occupation on account of a disability arising from war injuries. There are the war widows and children orphaned as a result of one or both parents being killed during war.

I cannot believe that the Government will complete the Committee stage of the Bill without providing for at least some disregard—we urge total disregard—for these people.

It is worth considering the sort of disregards which are allowed not just for supplementary benefit purposes but for other means-tested benefits. Means-tested benefits generally have disregards of one kind or another. In the assessment of whether a person is entitled to remission of prescription charges, the first £2 of a disability pension is, I understand, disregarded. In the assessment of school maintenance grant, there are allowances for dependent relatives, a housekeeper or help when, for example, the mother is incapacitated. When a person is applying for free school dinners, there are disregards in respect of disability pensions, the first £1 of national insurance industrial injury benefit, and family allowances. There are allowances made in the calculation of rent rebates, too.

It seems to us extraordinary that the Government should introduce a new scheme in an attempt to ameliorate family poverty yet not provide for these people who are at work at least similar advantages to those given to people not at work. Their scheme will stand on its own as virtually the only means-tested scheme in the country designed to ameliorate poverty which allows for no disregards whatever.

A case can be made for all the Amendments, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to make a case for one or other of them. However, after seeing the performance in Committee over the past two days, when reasonable Amendments modest in their financial implications have been rejected, we now envisage—I should not have done so two days ago—that the Government may reject these Amendments. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that even a Conservative Government could resist us on the Amendment dealing with war pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity given by this group of Amendments to tell the Committee about his attitude to the general question of disregards. At present, the position is far from clear. There is a passage in the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the end of the

Second Reading debate—it has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley)—which appears to suggest that it is at least highly improbable that any disregard will be allowed:
… if we are to keep the scheme simple, as we must, it is very difficult to introduce any form of disregard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 334.]
On the other hand, the second half of Clause 4 confers on the Government wide powers by regulation in the matter of disregards. I am certain that so consistent a Parliamentarian as my right hon. Friend would not be seeking powers for something which he had not the faintest intention to do. If he asks for these powers, he must have in mind at least the possibility that in certain respects a disregard will be allowed.
I have great sympathy with the point which my hon. Friend put in winding up on Second Reading about the administrative problems once one launches oneself into the disregards. There are real problems there, and I can well understand his desire to keep the scheme simple. But it is not intended to bring the scheme into operation till next August. The resources and high administrative capacity within the Department could, I am certain, if my right hon. Friend wanted it, handle the administrative problems of some disregards in the fairly long period between tonight and August next year. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that in taking power to introduce disregards he has it in mind to use them, at any rate in certain cases.
I come to a point which I raised on Second Reading, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham has just referred, and which produced the answer of my right hon. Friend which has been quoted. I refer to the question of war pensions. The hon. Member for Rotherham is quite right. Under Governments of all parties war pensions have been treated as a distinct and different provision from anything else in our social security system. This derives to some extent from the fact that all Governments have committed themselves to the general proposition of priority for war pensioners, and this priority has been illustrated in many ways—the slightly higher rates of benefit compared with industrial injuries benefit, the priority provision of transport, and so on.
There is one supporting factor which the hon. Gentleman did not mention but which I think is very significant. A war pension, compensation for disability, is completely disregarded for income tax purposes. That is not the case with the war widow. But it has always been the fact—and I believe that it goes back to the instruments after the First World War—that a war pension, together with the allowances going to the pensioner, which are sometimes of considerable value, is completely disregarded for Inland Revenue purposes and is not treated as income.
That indicates that such payments are in a very special category. I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates the reason for it. The concept is that in giving priority to people injured in the service of their country the compensation which they receive for their injuries should be treated as simply putting them back, as far as is possible—and, of course, it is not completely possible—in the position of an uninjured person. This is not income; it is simply to offset the handicap of the disability. What they earn above that should be subjected to tax, but they should be regarded as starting the race rather further back, and this is required to cancel out the handicap. That is the reasoning which has lain behind what is, from the Inland Revenue point of view, a rare exception.
It is unhappily the fact that, although some of us urged it very strongly on the late Government and were turned down, war pensions are not disregarded for the purposes of rate rebates under the relevant legislation. But it is my clear recollection that the party to which my right hon. Friend and I belong is pledged to put that right, and I very much hope that the Government will do so before long. A very clear commitment was made. That is indicative of the special position of war pensioners. There is also the very good point of the hon. Member for Rotherham that, from the point of view of supplementary benefit, war pensions are treated differently and given a higher disregard than other forms of income.
I hope that, when my right hon. Friend tells us how he proposes to exercise the powers, war pensions will be very much

in his mind and perhaps will be the first of the benefits which he should consider.

Mr. O'Malley: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of war pensioners. A second vital category is made up of people who will be receiving the attendance allowance.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend will recollect that there is one connection between the attendance allowance provision and the provision made for war pensions. When my right hon. Friend announced the very welcome attendance allowance in his admirable piece of legislation last summer, there was some doubt about whether it would be subjected to tax. On reflection, the Government decided that it should be exempted from tax. I think that it was the Under-Secretary of State who made that very welcome announcement. But on parity of reasoning, the considerations which led him, on reflection, to provide that the constant attendance allowance should not be taxable lead irresistibly to the conclusion that there should be a disregard for the purpose of family income supplement.
I wish to raise only one other point. It was put to me by one of the outside organisations which concern themselves with this matter. It is slightly complicated, for which I apologise. What will be the position if in a family in respect of which application is made for family income supplement there is a foster child with a payment made for the foster child in excess of £2 a week? This is a situation which arises in fact; it is not an academic point.
As I understand the Bill—and I hope that this will be confirmed—the foster child is brought into the calculations, being a child within the definition of Clause 1(1)(c). But suppose that the allowance made to the family for the foster child is, as it may well be and very often is, about £3 or £4. Will the receipt of any excess of £2 operate to diminish the amount of family income supplement or deprive the family of it? If that were so, it would be wrong. When an allowance is made for a foster child, it is made on a sober calculation of what it will cost properly to look after the child. It would be wrong if part of the money


coming from public sources for that purpose were to operate to diminish below what it would otherwise be the total income of the family.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has considered that point. It was not a point which occurred to me. It was put to me by an authoritative outside commentator. I undertook to put it to my right hon. Friend, and I seize this opportunity of doing so.

Mr. McNamara: I should like to follow up the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I tried to put it, although not as ably and eloquently as the right hon. Gentleman, when we were discussing the last Amendment. I support all that the right hon. Gentleman said, and, therefore, I do not wish to pursue the point unduly, but it is of considerable seriousness and could detrimentally affect a lot of children and families and could, to a limited extent, place inhibitions on people who otherwise might be more than willing to take children into their care and give them a normal family life if they felt that their own children would dramatically suffer financially rather than enrich the life of the foster child. I am not suggesting that people do this for profit; I do not think that people go in for the job of foster parents for profit. But their income and their children could be detrimentally affected if the point of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is not borne in mind by the Secretary of State as a disregard.
I should like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the question of maintenance allowances for children in a family. It depends whether we look upon them as money paid as income for the children or as money going to the parents. If they are regarded as money going to the parents, will they be counted as part of the income going into the household as a whole?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope to have an opportunity to comment on the powerful point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but the Committee should know that, as at present advised, both streams of income—the money received as foster parents and the main-

tenance payment—are family income for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. McNamara: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That seems to me to be most regrettable. It means that where a family, perhaps a one-parent family, would otherwise benefit by the scheme, it would not do so if maintenance were coming in for, possibly, a later union or when people were living together and bringing two families together. That is simply one aspect of the maintenance matter.
I want to look at another aspect which could, perhaps, be more important. I have talked about maintenance coming in, but what about maintenance going out? I have in mind a situation in which a person is separated from his wife and child and moves into another household, creating, for the purpose of the Bill, a fresh household. Under the terms of the separation, the magistrates may have laid upon that person powerful commitments to his former union and children. He attempts to meet those commitments and a great deal of money goes out from his income.
I am quoting an actual case and I therefore know the situation. That man may go into another household in which there is a woman and a number of children, who would benefit by way of family income supplement, but as he is living with her, they would not benefit by way of the family income supplement if his income, inclusive of the maintenance which he pays out to his former wife or cohabitee, is taken into account.
On the other hand, the money which the woman from whom he is separated and her children are getting for maintenance has already been disregarded for her application for social security benefits. As the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has just said, that sum of money would, at present, be included as income for the household.
In that complicated and difficult situation which those people have got themselves into—unfortunately, lots of people get themselves into difficult and complicated situations, as we all know from our weekly "surgeries"—family income supplement could be of considerable value. Otherwise, a situation might arise in which subterfuges are adopted The man might be only a lodger. He might simply pay the woman a certain


amount of money and they do not live together; they are not a household. This might give rise to all sorts of dishonesty, which is bad for the State, bad for the situation generally and bad for the children in that kind of atmosphere. I suggest that maintenance which goes to another family unit should be disregarded.
It could be argued that people should not get themselves into that tangle and mess; but they do. Unless we try to cater for the situation, children so placed will suffer for the sins, the peccadilloes or the misfortunes of their parents. We want to avoid that kind of situation.
I am sorry to have taken so much time in putting the point. It is complicated, as the Secretary of State will admit. This is, however, a point of substance. The money paid out has once been disregarded for the person who is separated. Why cannot it be disregarded for the purposes of the Bill?
I should like to underline a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) in moving his Amendment—that is, the position of the widower who pays money either for people to look after his children in the home or for his children to go to a day nursery or to one of the many institutions which have grown up to help people in this situation to keep a family unit going when there is no mother or woman present in the house. If, under the scheme, we create a situation in which we help the fatherless family, on the other side of the coin we should also have a disregard to help the motherless family. This is important.

Dame Irene Ward: The various points which have been brought forward, particularly on the present series of Amendments, confirm how wise it is of my right hon. Friend to introduce in the first case a simple scheme and to leave all the complicated issues, which are obvious from the speeches which have been made from both sides, until the regulations are laid. I for one want to study in depth all the various angles which have been put forward this afternoon by so many hon. Members.
In a scheme of this kind, which touches so many aspects of social life, it is very wise to allow a period in which all of us who have a deep interest in these

matters can collect our evidence and look at the cases which are brought forward, because quite a number of considerations have been mentioned in this debate. We all need time, not only to look at the points which have been put forward, but, jumping from those points, there are many other circumstances which may crop up and other disregards which ought to have been put in the Bill but which might be left out, because this is a very complicated issue throughout the country. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is very wise to say that the introduction of the scheme will be simple and we shall then have an opportunity on the regulations to deal with all the important points which have been brought forward.
I support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the foster child. Although there are a lot of things that I expect to see in the regulations, I give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State full warning that, although I support him tonight, I shall expect him to consider in depth all the points of view which are put forward. Even now, there are some of his observations with which I do not agree. I am simply letting him know here and now, because I believe in going into battle as early as possible.
I have known for many years that my right hon. Friend has a very deep interest in all these matters. It is up to those of us in the House of Commons, on both sides, who have knowledge of the detail about how all these matters are dealt with to give him the facts. He certainly is a man who will alter his mind when he thinks it right to do so, and it is up to us to make him alter his mind. That is as I see it.
I am interested in the variety of problems such as were related by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) concerning people who get themselves into muddles. I wish to quote a case which, I know, will be covered by the Bill but about which I felt unhappy at the time.
I remember a young apprentice on the Tyne whose girl friend was having a baby. The apprentice married her, which we would all think was quite the right line to take. Then, however, because he was earning an apprentice's wage, he could not get any consideration for the


baby. Those who were concerned in social work on Tyneside pointed out to me in strong terms that the baby was almost at starvation point. All that was done for the child had to be done—and was done gladly—by the voluntary organisations. It was a really perfectly frightful situation to have arisen in our civilised society, that a young apprentice having very rightly married his girl friend should have been deprived, because he was earning, of provision under supplementary benefit for the baby.
7.30 p.m.
From what I have learned in my "surgery" I can appreciate the very serious and widespread problems which arise, many of which have not been mentioned in the Committee, and I want to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said about disregard of disability pensions and so on. Of course, everybody in the Committee ought to know that a tradition which has been accepted by all parties here over the years is never broken by the Government—certainly not by the Government of my party; nor, indeed, would it be broken by the Opposition. So I say to myself that if the disregards are not included in the Bill we are going to see them in the regulations. I certainly would not support the Bill if I thought we were not going to get the disregards in the regulations when they come. The fact that they are not provided in the Bill itself is an indication that we are going to be able to get all sorts of things included in the regulations which will make the Bill more human, more in line with what we want for people who have been living below the poverty line. I am quite certain this is in the mind of my right hon. Friend. So I hope that between now and the introduction of the regulations all of us who take such a deep interest in these matters will find many problems for my right hon. Friend to solve.
I do not mind in the least pouring problems on to the head of my right hon. Friend. The more I pour problems on to his head the better am I pleased, because I expect that he will solve them in the way the Commitee and I would like. Even though he may not be surprised at my saying so, he will have this opportunity. Knowing his character, and the work which he has done over many

years, and the interest which he has shown in these matters, I am jolly certain that he will be very human and very humane—and the same applies to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has been a tower of strength. All I am saying is that I approve the way my right hon. Friend is handling the matter, but that I do, as I said, give him a warning that I have a lot of things which I want to see done; and also, that I can see some wonderful ways of dealing with the Treasury when the Finance Bill comes along. I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I say to him, do not get too busy saying—as he has when he has jumped up once or twice—things I do not approve of, because the time will come when we shall expect to have notice taken of what back benchers on both sides of the Committee have said, and on this issue they have very wide knowledge. So my right hon. Friend ought to bear in mind all the points which have been put by hon. Members, and he ought also to bear in mind that those cases vary from one part of the country to another. So I say to him, let him proceed as he wants to, but bear these things in mind.
I do not object to the Opposition making all the points which they have made, because they must be very sorry that they did not introduce this Bill. I am not sorry for them. I think we have been doing a very good job in bringing out this whole matter of family poverty, and I am sure that our measures will be a great success in helping them who require our help. So I shall support my right hon. Friend, but I shall do so hoping that when the regulations come they will deal with many of those defects which constitute injustices to people; because I do not think the House of Commons has removed nearly enough injustices in the 34 years I have been a Member of it. Here is a new opportunity. So good luck to my right hon. Friend. I am sure he is doing the right thing, but he should remember that many of us have a lot of things we want him to deal with by including them in the regulations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am most happy that my first brief speech from this Box should be on a matter of concern to the long-term sick and disabled and more


especially to the families of the disabled.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has emphasised, this is a very important group of Amendments. They deal with some of the most sensitive problems raised by the provisions of this Bill. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will have taken very seriously the arguments which have been deployed from this side of the Committee and that he wil have received those arguments sympathetically.
I have a very personal interest in saving constant attendance allowance from the erosive effects of this Clause as it now stands. It may be recalled that as it was originally drafted my Private Member's Bill, now the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, helped to inform the arrangements for constant attendance allowance as provided in the Superannuation Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in the late Parliament. It was emphasised in our debates on what is now the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Constant Attendance Allowance) Act 1970, that constant attendance allowance is woefully inadequate. By definition of the term "constant attendance" an allowance of £4 must be considered as totally inadequate to meet the costs of those who care constantly for the very severely disabled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East proposed an invalidity pension which, with the constant attendance allowance, would have made the financial standing of disabled people and their relatives far stronger than it is today. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we ought not to be reducing the constant attendance allowance in consequence of any provision in this Bill?
Disablement is often another word for poverty. We sometimes forget that most people who are severely disabled are also extremely poor people. I would emphasise that if you want to make certain of a deprived childhood, find a disabled father. I know that the Child Poverty Action Group will agree with me that a great deal of the deep-seated poverty soiling the lives of many children

in this country at the moment is caused by the very low living standards of most disabled people. Even if a disabled person is fortunate enough to be in employment, in most cases he is likely to be in menial and low-paid employment. There are many disabled people who can be very much affected by the provisions of this Bill.
I was refreshed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He always speaks with great candour, force and experience on these questions. The argument which he has put today is unquestionably the correct course for his right hon. Friend to follow. In his speech on the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Act, 1970, the right hon. Gentleman argued powerfully and with great sincerity that we should save the constant attendance allowance from the erosive effect of taxation. He was so persuasive that he carried the point. I hope that what he has said today and what has been said on this side of the House will convince the Secretary of State that the constant attendance allowance should be affected by F.I.S. nor F.I.S. by the constant attendance allowance.
I am extremely concerned to support the points that have been made on behalf of the war disabled. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames put forward an incontrovertible case, and I hope that the interests of the war disabled will be fully respected by the Secretary of State.
The propositions made by my hon. Friends will cost more money but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) said, we had the impression that the Government were prepared to spend up to £30 million for the relief of poverty and, more especially, of child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group certainly expected that amount of money to be available. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at an important stage in the passing of the recent legislation for the long-term sick and disabled and the Money Resolution for that Act of Parliament owes a great deal to his constancy and the sincerity of his efforts.
I therefore press strongly Amendment 31 and the Amendments which seek to help the war disabled. I do so because otherwise disabled people will think that "F.I.S." is nothing more than a "Swizz".

Mr. Kenneth Clark: I will briefly address the Committee on Amendment 31. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity either by accepting the Amendment or, more probably, by telling us what will run through his mind when he is drawing up the regulations, to assure the Committee that receipt of a constant attendance allowance will not affect entitlement to F.I.S. As the Committee has already been addressed twice on this subject, I do not need to reiterate what has been said about the belief on both sides of the Committee that entitlement to a constant attendance allowance should in no way affect entitlement to any other benefit. F.I.S. clearly falls into that category in view of the special arrangements that have been made for the constant attendance allowance.
I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend that the administrative difficulties which face the other claims for disregards do not apply in the case of constant attendance allowance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the constant attendance allowance can be disregarded, as this benefit is not yet being paid. His Department is having to contend with the first administrative steps towards making the allowance payable and I understand that it will not become payable until April, 1972, whereas F.I.S. is expected to become payable in August of next year.
I am sure my right hon. Friend will be able to inform the Committee that it is not the intention that people who are expecting to receive a constant attendance allowance of £4 a week in April 1972 and who will also qualify for F.I.S. in August next year will find in April 1972 that the £4 a week Allowance will disentitle them to F.I.S. which they will by then have been receiving for about seven months.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give an assurance of this. This is the second of two important pieces of legislation which the Government have brought forward in this field. The families who will be benefited by both pieces

of legislation will be those with a severely disabled member entitled to an attendance allowance and also having a low wage earner eligible for this benefit and they must be in a very small exceptionally needy category in our society. I hope that he will be able to assure the Committee that these two major steps will be complementary and that the first piece of legislation will in no way exclude entitlement to benefit under this Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) appeal for disregards on the ground of logic and consistency. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) appealed for humane treatment for the disabled and the poor sectors of our community. We were particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) take his rightful place at the Box to speak for the disabled. No man before reaching the Dispatch Box could have done as much for them as he did.
Logic, consistency, humanity and a passionate appeal are the arguments that have been used in support of this group of Amendments. I do not have the feeling that the Amendments will be taken into account when the regulations are introduced. I am more pessimistic. I want to argue for the Amendments in terms of public expenditure. It is utterly unreasonable not to accept the Amendments dealing with the constant attendance allowance and the allowance for a widower with children. An important argument in favour of the constant attendance allowance was that the demand on the State Health Service was less when families looked after a member who was chronically sick or disabled. It is better for the patient and also for the family, although in many cases it is more inconvenient for the family. The saving to the State is far in excess of the small constant attendance allowance.
If the Amendments are not accepted a bizarre situation will arise. Families will have a financial incentive to exclude the chronically sick or disabled person from their family and put that person


into an institution. The Minister looks aghast; but people on this level of poverty must take into account every penny, and where there are differences between a man and wife as to whether an old person should be cared for at home this can certainly come into consideration. There should be no financial penalty on the family for caring for a chronically sick or disabled person at home. The Health Service cannot adequately provide for the geriatric patient or the young chronic sick. This argument applies equally to the widower who decides to keep his young family together. It is utterly absurd to provide in the Bill a financial disincentive to a person who wants to keep his family together.
If the pension of a war pensioner is not disregarded a great feeling of injustice will be created. We all know that rent rebates because they have disregarded the war pension have caused a feeling of injustice. The man who was injured in the war will be no better off after the means test is applied than the man who has not been injured in the war. Most people feel that the men who have been injured should be better off and that there should be an element of compensation. For these reasons I ask the Government to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: When I hear the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) speak, I sometimes think that I should address her as "my hon. Friend". With some of her ideas she should be on this side of the House.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will be almost bound to accept Amendment No. 29 because it goes to the heart of the matter in terms of applying value analysis. If a widower can be encouraged to look after his children and not put them in a home, this will in the long run save money. It is morally right and would have the virtue of being economically sound.
Amendment No. 30 mentions the figure of £2. That magical figure is always cropping up in my constituency mail and in my work with disabled people. It is a measure of the despair and difficulty in which these people find themselves. They are frequently exploited. It is known that they have a maximum earnings ceiling and frequently they have to

work very hard as out-workers—and this applies both to the disabled and to women working in their own homes. Therefore, this magical figure imposes a hardship and if the £2 is taken into account this hardship will be increased. Perhaps at some stage the right hon. Gentleman will consider raising the minimum earnings rule and will accept the terms of the Amendment.
I speak with some feeling on Amendment No. 31. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and I were grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman in the legislation mentioned in the Amendment, but its application from April, 1972, has caused anxiety. One of my constituents, a lady, has been affected by this matter, and the way things are going she will not have the benefit of the £4 constant attendance allowance if we have to wait another 18 months or so for implementation.
On the other hand, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman because, although he has not conceded our point that there should be disabled members of the board, he has taken our advice and appointed Miss Mary Grieves to the board. Perhaps I am straying from the terms of the Amendment and I conclude by saying that I hope the Government will accept Amendment No. 31.
I also wish to commend Amendment No. 33 to the Committee. People drawing pensions as a result of war injuries or disability are often the sort of people who try to do work. I have had correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman's Department about one particular case. I feel that the general practice of disregarding pension in respect of war service will be another way of showing compassion. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept all these Amendments, but particularly Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 33.

8.0 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: This has been a valuable debate. I should like to distribute prizes, as the Committee will remember Alice did after the tortoise race, to all the runners because so many participants in the discussion have put a powerful case. But I must put the situation to the Committee that the aim of the Bill is to help the poorest of the poor and to help them as quickly as we can, and we are up against some time problems.
I ask the Committee to accept that at the first stage we shall not be able to deal with the exceptional cases which hon. Members have legitimately raised and also to keep to the date of 1st August for putting the supplement into payment. I shall not therefore be able to encourage hon. Members to think that the first batch of regulations will make the range of disregards that hon. Members feel will be justified. That is not to say that once we have the scheme in operation we shall not be able to introduce the more complex administrative arrangements involved in disregards.
I will not take the general philosophical point that disregards have no logical place in means-tested schemes because we all know that we do not strain logic to that extent. We are all aware that the supplementary benefits system embodies a number of disregards. It may be that at a later stage after this scheme is in operation the family incomes supplement scheme will have to have some disregards.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that there is no disregard the Government would wish to introduce in preference to or before a disregard for the war pensioner. But I ask the Committee to be sympathetic in the administrative problem that faces the Government. The Bill has to go through several more stages both here and in another place and once, as I hope will happen, it receives the Royal Assent there must then be a mass of preparatory work to get the benefit tout simple into payment.
I was challenged to devise a simple presentation of the theme of this Bill, and I designed a 38-word description which I will not quote to the Committee. But I can assure the Committee that the moment disregards are introduced there must be qualifying clauses in the description of the supplement in the manual of instructions, and then there will be a large administrative task in sorting out those who are not entitled.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who told me that she had to leave these discussions and who offered me a sort of armed warning with guns loaded but not actually fired, that disregards as justified will be considered for the second stage

if we feel that arguments by hon. Members are right.
I hope that the Committee will sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and other hon. Members who supported him in saying that the war pensioner has a unique position. Both parties have honoured that position in every single benefit except, as was pointed out, by the recent Government in its rate rebate scheme. I hope that at a later stage we shall be able to carry forward that treatment, though I cannot at this stage give an absolute commitment.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman spoke in terms of stage 1 and stage 2. Could he give some idea of the time scale when we might have, for example, a second batch of regulations dealing with disregards?

Sir K. Joseph: I would have thought not before a year after the supplement comes into operation. I do not want to give an exaggerated impression to the Committee, but I hope that it will be about then. We would then have enough experience and the machine would be operating smoothly enough to enable us to prepare to introduce the second stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to help some of us who will have to come to a decision shortly. Will he say whether the fact that he has put a disregard provision in the Bill indicates that it is his present intention to have at some stage a system of disregards; and in the light of what he said about war pensions that they would be the first in that batch?

Sir K. Joseph: I know that my right hon. Friend is trying to help me as well as the Committee, but I am in this difficulty. I am being asked to look ahead to a time not too far away when earnings, prices, taxes and, therefore, the numbers involved in the poorest of the poor may have changed. I do not know whether the number will increase or reduce, but I have to consider the equity of the matter in distinguishing between a family whose income is above the prescribed amount because of an ingredient which is disregarded and is still helped by the supplement, and another family whose income solely from earnings is the same but which will not get a supplement. I ask my right hon. Friend to


give the Government liberty to make an assessment about that matter in the light of the then volume of poverty without asking me to give a final commitment. If the number remains something like it is now, I would have thought that it made good sense to introduce a moderate range of disregards, but I would not like to be absolutely committed to that proposition since so many factors may alter in the meantime.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend posed the problem of the poorest of the poor and of disregarding one source of income for one family rather than for another. When making his final decision, will he reflect that in dealing with the very poorest of the poor, those on supplementary benefit, it has been accepted policy for many years to give a substantial extended disregard to the war pensioner?

Mr. Barnett: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers his right hon. Friend, could he confirm that he is not prepared to give a firm commitment to have a disregard for war pensioners?

Sir K. Joseph: To answer both points, I accept that the supplementary benefits scheme does not help the poorest of the poor in the section we are now discussing, because the people we are now discussing are poorer than those on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some of them.

Sir K. Joseph: I mean in terms of gross income. I would love to be able to tell the Committee that there will be disregards for the war pensioner. I want to reserve a small liberty of manoeuvre by saying that there may be changes. It must be remembered that with this Bill we are sailing into unknown territory. We are trying to bring a new form of help to a group of people whom we all hope will before long be eliminated by the movement of earnings as against the movement of prices. We hope that the people concerned will be enabled to improve their standards of living in real terms sufficiently to escape from the FIS bracket.

Mr. Meacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman's last statement imply that

the Government, even at this stage, do not intend to raise FIS at all in line with average earnings and to increase it at very much less than the rate of increase in the average earnings? That would seem to be the import of his statement.

Sir K. Joseph: No. I have already told the Committee at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Government will look again at the latest level of earnings known to us at the last possible date in making regulations to affect the prescribed amount before the Bill comes into force. There was no such implication or inference to be drawn by the hon. Gentleman from what I said.
I want to help the Committee. I cannot envisage circumstances at the moment in which it would not be right for the Government at one stage after the supplement has been in payment for something of the order of a year to introduce a disregard for war pensioners. It is because no Government can yet envisage all the relevant circumstances, that I wish to avoid making an absolute commitment on this matter.
I now move on to the other elements in the questions that were asked.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On the matter of disregards, would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a more considered statement at a later stage in the Bill?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is being very helpful. I may be able after reflection on various considerations to go further on Report. I undertake to make a statement. I cannot undertake that that will be a guaranteed, copper-bottomed reassurance, but I shall reconsider the arguments and make a statement on Report. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).
This has been a valuable debate, and I have a number of other questions to deal with. First, there is an Amendment to disregard family allowances. That Amendment is misconceived, because the prescribed amount already takes family allowances into account, so that the ceiling for supplement already builds in the family allowance.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall an earlier Amendment moved from this side of the Committee suggesting that there should be a reduction in the allowance for children in order to allow family allowances to be paid, having been disregarded? This Amendment complements that earlier Amendment, its object being that any future increase in family allowances shall go to families across the board, including those which benefit from F.I.S.

Sir K. Joseph: I can reassure the hon. Lady that any future increase in family allowances would need to be reflected in the prescribed amount under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a valuable point when he raised the question of a payment for a foster child in excess of the normal amount. I need to look again at the whole position of the foster child in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said. He posed a situation for which I do not have an immediate answer. I undertake to look at the implications of the Bill for fostering. The last thing we want to do is to inhibit a local authority from fostering a child with one of these families if it is otherwise suitable. I shall give the House a considered view on Report.
But I ask the Committee to realise that up to the prescribed amount all the streams of income that have been discussed by hon. Members are already disregarded up to 50 per cent., up to the prescribed amount. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) takes the point. It is a general acceptance of disregards for all streams of income within the Bill up to the prescribed amount.
I was asked about Amendment No. 28, about what we intended to do by way of disregards for capital. At present we have no intention of making regulations about capital, largely because we do not expect that many of these families will pose a capital problem. But as we are moving into an unknown field, we thought it right to take power in the Bill to make regulations about how capital should be treated if a number of families prove to have capital assets.

Mr. O'Malley: I trust that when the inquiries are made on which the assessment will be based, there will be no

inquiries as to any capital such families have.

Sir K. Joseph: That is correct. The only relevance of capital about which any inquiry as such will be made will be if it is producing a stream of income, if dividends or Post Office interest are coming into the family income.

Mr. O'Malley: What I fear is the situation where a family might have very limited money, for example, in a Post Office. We should want an assurance that no officer of the Department would say, "You have a few hundred pounds there. While you have that, you are not entitled to family income supplement." In the absence of regulations defining the situation, could not that kind of thing happen?

Sir K. Joseph: No. I do not think that there would be any entitlement for an officer to do that in the absence of regulations, because he will be concerned with the income coming into the household. But if we find that enough of such families have significant amounts of capital we shall have to bring regulations before the House.
I come now to the attendance allowance, which comes into payment, I hope, in April 1972. There is a strong feeling in the Committee that it should be disregarded. But I must point out to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, that if the man in the F.I.S. household is in receipt of constant attendance allowance it cannot really be a F.I.S. household, because he will be on supplementary benefit.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The woman?

8.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: If the wife is in receipt of the constant attendance allowance for the very severely disabled it will be a very exceptional case. I am perfectly prepared to take it into account at stage 2 and consider whether there is a case for disregards, but I do not want to complicate the instructions to the officers concerned by writing in a disregard for that very limited case in the first stage. I undertake that we shall watch out, particularly during the first months when the supplement is in payment, to see whether any of these cases are involved, and if


they are—or even if they are not, but there is evidence that they might be—we shall introduce regulations to disregard them.
But the allowance is not payable until April, 1972, and we have time in the intervening months to introduce regulations to cause it to be disregarded if that seems necessary.

Mr. Golding: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the families whether there are members of them who are disabled? Very often it is not the father that is disabled. It may be the mother or very often the father or mother of one of the parents, or a child.

Sir K. Joseph: I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about the technicalities of his point. Certainly we shall know if one of the parents or the substitute parent is in receipt of attendance allowance, because requiring both to make the claim jointly will ensure that the officers know the income that either and both receive.
I come to the whole range of Amendments dealing not so much with disregards as with deductions. Several hon. Members have made the point that single women, widowers and motherless households are often involved in costs in arranging care for the child or children. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who specialises in difficult cases—very helpfully, made the point about maintenance going out of one household and into another FIS household. Here again I must ask the Committee to be understanding. To allow deductions for costs would involve a great increase in checking. We could not always rely on an individual saying, "I must pay out £4 a week" for this or that arrangement. It could be collusive in many cases. There would need to be checking, and once we introduce checking our chance of having a 1st August, 1971, start to payment will be in danger.
Anyway, I am not sure that we can begin to take account of deductions. Our object is to raise the income of the poorest of the poor wage-earning households. We are not trying to erect a parallel supplementary benefit scheme for those in work. Our object is to get their earnings up, by increased productivity,

and until they are up to help them in this way.
I can give the Committee a categorical reassurance about the interaction of sickness benefit and F.I.S. If a F.I.S. payment is arranged for 26 weeks, or any shorter period, and during the period covered by the F.I.S. commitment the parent falls sick, the F.I.S. continues for that period. There is no attempt to reclaim it in the weeks after sickness began, and the sickness benefit, which is a contributory benefit, comes into payment as if F.I.S. were not in payment—that is, irrespective of F.I.S. I hope that that at least is one solid reassurance.
I am sorry that I have had to give less than a total reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members who feel strongly about these various Amendments, but I assure them that at stage two we shall seriously take into account all their arguments, and I will make a further statement on Report on the war pensions disregard point and on the foster-child household point.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to be helpful and has recognised that this is a debate about which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides feel deeply. I am sorry, therefore, to press him further, but press him I must. Occasionally it is the job of Parliament to make the life of the Executive more difficult or to make the life of the Civil Service more inconvenient, because Parliament, in its wisdom, believes that justice must be done.
There are about six or seven right hon. and hon. Members present who have been Ministers, all of whom know better than I that frequently a Minister is advised that if he accepts a particular Amendment it will complicate his life and that of his Department, and it is only when the Minister decides that the feeling in Parliament is so strong that he must give way that he in fact does. I suspect that this is such a situation: that the right hon. Gentleman is not without sympathy for the points which have been argued by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and others, but that he feels that the Amendment would complicate the Bill. We are not persuaded that the Amendment would complicate the


Bill past the possibility of bringing it in at the date which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If there is a will, we suspect that a way will be found.
On the basis of that broad presentation which I put to the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to raise several crucial points. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that there might be a stage two and that, when his scheme became more sophisticated, it might then be possible to include certain disregards. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that by the end of his speech the stage two which seemed potential at the beginning had got rather close to actuality. We must press him to make sure that it is actual and to attach a date to it. But, more than that, we must press the right hon. Gentleman to look again at whether stages one and two cannot coincide.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the constant attendance allowance will come into operation in 1972 or, more precisely, his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) pointed that out. That means that it would be possible to operate that disregard in the Bill, because administratively it could be coped with by 1972. It would be an earnest of his good intentions to amend the Bill in that way.
It would not be all that difficult to do the same for war pensions. I will explain why in a moment. Nor would it be all that difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to do it in another case which would completely meet his worry about foster parents. I refer to the point about the £2 disregard for the earnings or income—I accept that the drafting would have been better as "income"—of other members of the family.
In this situation the right hon. Gentleman must look again at the crucial question of disincentives. In many instances a wife, or other member of the family, who is going out to work parttime—in most cases it would be a wife—will have to stop work if there is no disregard should her husband's income increase by a pound or two unless the entire family is to lose as a result. The right hon. Gentleman must look into this matter because it is realistic that this will happen. We ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, not to produce a disincentive which is severe in some

spheres with which he is concerned. Women who take lowly paid jobs often work, for example, as school dinner helpers, as assistants in wards for the mentally handicapped, and as nursing assistants. Their work is often important to these services. The right hon. Gentleman will not assist that work to continue by refusing a disregard for a wife's income.
I should like now to go back to the points about war pensions, the disregard for wives, and the constant attendance allowance. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement on Second Reading—in many ways it was an encouraging statement—said that he would wish to seek to find a single passport—by which he meant a single means test—for a whole range of means tested benefits. Part of the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position, though not that of the Opposition, is that he should seek to do this. If the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy is to stand, he must have the simplest possible means testing arrangements over the whole range of means tests.
I have about 25 copies of means tests. Nine or 10 are national ones; the other 10 or 11 are local authority ones. Those schemes are complex, but almost every one includes certain disregards. Above all, they include—not in every case, but in most cases—specific disregards for war pensions and for the income of a working wife. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is taking a step not towards simplicity, but, in the end, towards complexity by accepting a scheme without disregards and trying to relate it to a set of means tests with disregards. This is a serious and real point which the right hon. Gentleman must consider.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech—I hope that he will forgive me saying this, but I must—presented a rather disingenuous argument when he said that all kinds of income were taken into account so that it could be called a kind of general disregard. But that is not what we are trying to do. What we, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, are trying to indicate is that certain categories of people deserve a little better of the community, because, like the disabled, the expenses that they cannot avoid are particularly high. This is the reason for the constant attendance


allowance. For example, a family with a disabled mother meets expenses which the rest of us do not begin to understand or even contemplate.
The same is true in a different way of war pensioners. It has always been accepted in the House that the war pensioner deserves not the same treatment as everbody else, but something a little better. We are not just talking about the average war pensioners; we are talking about war pensioners who, by definition, are on very low incomes and who, in a sense, the community have let down. So in this case, of all cases, it is essential that this additional privilege should be allowed. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this point again.
I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, which was rather lightly given, that he would at least come forward with a statement on Report but could not commit himself to what that statement might contain. It is far too vague an assurance for us to accept. Therefore, we must press for Divisions on certain of these Amendments.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the hon. Lady took the line that she did in her concluding sentences. The Committee will agree that we have had a very good debate, and it seemed to me to culminate in my right hon. Friend's assurance that on Report he would make a further statement with particular reference to the matters about which the whole Committee is concerned, those of war pensions and constant attendance allowance.
It is my view that my right hon. Friend should be given that opportunity. The hon. Lady has been in Government. She knows that when a Minister encounters, as my right hon. Friend has, considerable resistance on one point in Committee, if he is a responsible Minister he will want to go back and have an opportunity to discuss in his Department what it may be possible to do to meet the wishes of the Committee.
I have complete personal confidence in my right hon. Friend that he did not make that statement without at least contemplating the possibility that he may be able to go a little further on Report. I am

satisfied with that assurance, and I am glad that he has given it. I think that the hon. Lady would strengthen the general all-party demand on my right hon. Friend that he should do that if she would reserve her judgment until that occasion. It would be perfectly easy to table an appropriate Amendment—indeed, it would be sensible to do so—to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to make his statement on Report.
The hon. Lady might get far more support if my right hon. Friend's statement were then unsatisfactory than she is likely to get tonight. I think, too, that she will give my right hon. Friend a greater encouragement to go a little further to meet us if she does not press the matter to a Division tonight. For my part, I am satisfied, for the time being, with my right hon. Friend's assurance.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely persuasive, but I must put a direct question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the answer is satisfactory, we shall not press the matter to a Division.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement on Report, first, about whether war pensions and constant attendance allowance can be exempted, and exempted at an earlier stage than some hypothetical Stage 2? We want a specific statement that these will be exempted at the earliest possible date that he can conceivably administratively achieve.
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give serious consideration to, and make a statement about the disregard of £2 for a wife and other people's earnings? I put that less powerfully because the right hon. Gentleman has not made that a specific part of his plea.

Sir K. Joseph: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for putting my position perfectly. I have undertaken to make a statement on Report, and I have considered the possibility that I may be able to move further than I have felt free to move today. That is with particular reference to war pensions and constant attendance allowance. I should not like to be quite as strong about the £2 earning disregard.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order. Was that Amendment No. 26?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes. When I put the Question there was no response from the Opposition.

Mrs. Williams: There was.

The Deputy Chairman: With respect, there was not. If I may continue, perhaps I can clarify the position. If I understand it correctly, the position is that, on the following Amendments which have been discussed, the Committee wishes to divide on Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33, and if it is for the convenience of the Committee I shall proceed to put Amendment No. 30 separately.

Mrs. Williams: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. In view of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, we would wish to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 30. I apologise if I was deep in thought trying to work out the Amendments on which we were to divide. As I understand it, Amendment No. 30 would not make a great deal of sense unless the Committee was permitted to divide on Amendment No. 26. That is why I am afraid we rather belatedly shouted "Aye".

The Deputy Chairman: I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding. I clearly put the Question on Amendment No. 26. I collected the voices and there was no response from the Opposition. The Clerk at my side and I were

taking particular care to listen to the response because I had anticipated that as the hon. Lady had not withdrawn her Amendment she would wish me to put the matter to a Division. It was in the absence of a response that I moved as I did.

I do not want to embarrass the Committee in any way, but I assure the hon. Lady that it was in my mind that she would wish to divide the Committee on Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 and that this would be appropriate, and I shall do that if that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: May I see whether I can help the hon. Lady, because I agree that although the Opposition intended to divide they did not make a noise about it. If the Opposition succeed in winning a Division on Amendment No. 30 we shall help by introducing a technical Amendment at a later stage in order that Amendment No. 30 shall make sense.

The Deputy Chairman: That is what I expected would be the position.

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 2, line 26, at end add:
(3) In the calculation of gross income there shall be disregarded to the extent of the first £2 thereof any earnings (other than such as are excluded by virtue of sub-section 1 of this section) of any member of the said family who is not engaged in full-time remunerative work.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 177.

Division No. 29.
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S. W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Hamling, William


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harper, Joseph


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Freeson, Reginald
Kaufman, Gerald


Crawshaw, Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Russell




Lambie, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Lamond, James
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Latham, Arthur
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lawson, George
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pardoe, John
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomney, Frank


McBride, Neil
Prescott, John
Urwin, T. W.


McCann, John
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


McCartney, Hugh
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


McElhone, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Whitehead, Philip


McManus, Frank
Roper, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding and


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Humphrey
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Awdry, Daniel
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Benyon, W.
Gummer, Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boscawen, R. T.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley




Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, Norh)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Cormack, Patrick
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rost, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Dixon, Piers
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Antony
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Trew, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David







Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George


Ward, Dame Irene
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Warren, Kenneth
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Walter Clegg and


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Keith Speed.

The Deputy Chairman: As I understand the Committee is satisfied that it is not necessary to divide on Amendments Nos. 31 and 33, I think it would be the wish of the Committee to move on to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5

CLAIM TO AND PAYMENT OF FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 2, line 31, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 32 and insert:
'be made in such manner as regulations may provide'.

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 41, in page 2, line 33, leave out 'be receivable by either of them' and insert:
'except in such cases as may otherwise be provided by regulations be receivable by the woman'.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: This is a brief probing Amendment. The nearest comparison that we have to the type of assistance to be given by the Bill is family allowance. Family allowances are made to the mother. The mother may assign another person to pick them up. I can scarcely ever recall my wife collecting them; she usually leaves that to me.
The Secretary of State suggests that the application should be made by both parties jointly and that the payment should be made to either. To a certain extent, I appreciate some of the reasons for that. Obviously there may be circumstances where a husband is keeping his wife on short commons when she does not know what his true income is. There might be an occasion when both are

working and they do not know what each other's income is.
There may well be an important case which I should like the Under-Secretary to consider, when the pride of the man might be such that he feels that because he is in full-time occupation, his wage should be sufficient to keep his wife and children. In such circumstance, in what otherwise is a normal, happy family with a contented domestic background, he might put tremendous difficulties upon his wife because he is not prepared to go through a means test. But she, being a woman, and perhaps more realistic, finding it very difficult to make ends meet, would be prepared to do so.
These Amendments are to meet that type of situation. If the husband and wife are living jointly and one refuses to make the application, the wife should be able to do so.
In certain circumstances, it could create some domestic disharmony if a husband were not paying what he could well afford for the support of his wife and children. It might bring him up to recognise properly what his responsibilities were. But if he were too proud, it should at least be at the discretion of the wife to make application.
The second point is concerned with to whom the payment shall be made. Under the Bill the moneys will be receivable by either. For some of the reasons I indicated earlier, I should prefer the money to be paid to the wife at the first instance, with the wife able, as she is with the family allowance, to name an assignee to pick up the money for her. There are situations where that might be in the interests of the children and of the family living in poverty. This is the sort of situation with which we are concerned where it would be better for the wife to have the money first.
Briefly, the object of these two Amendments is simple. Could we not make the set-up more or less parallel with the family allowance arrangement?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for drawing attention to


another valuable consideration. He said that the Amendment was a probing Amendment to discover the Government's intentions about joint applications. The Bill says that there should be joint application except when the regulations provide otherwise.
We envisage that joint application would not be appropriate in, for example, one-parent families. There would be some difficulty in his proposal about two-parent families if a husband were not prepared to disclose his earnings—the earnings on which the basis of the supplement is calculated. I am a little doubtful about whether his suggestion would be practicable when two parents were involved.

Mr. McNamara: In order to save time, I did not elaborate the argument, but there may be families when two people are living together and are not husband and wife, when that particular legal bond does not exist. The man might be acting quite irresponsibly towards the household, but if he is brought up to see the problems, may act properly. I want the Government to keep that situation in mind.

Mr. Dean: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman is envisaging circumstances in which there may well be two FIS allowances due in a household, in which case one would need to know the income of each of the two people. We have the power to deal with that in the regulations. I undertake to look carefully at the point he has made to see whether it is necessary to cover it, or to see whether it is practicable to cover it, in which case it will be covered in the regulations.
Secondly, he discussed to whom the payments should be made. I understood what he had to say about family allowances normally being paid to the mother, and one assumes that in a normal two-parent household, this scheme would have that sort of arrangement. However, there may be instances where a practical objection would arise in that the family income supplement, unlike family allowances, might be paid to couples who were not married and when the woman was not the mother of the children. To do as the hon. Member suggests in all cases would therefore create difficulties.
However, we have very much in mind the general spirit of what the hon. Member wishes to achieve. It may not be possible to meet every case because of the practical difficulties which I have mentioned. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this short debate has been useful.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for what he has said and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

DETERMINATION OF RIGHT TO, AND AMOUNT OF, FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'Supplementary Benefits Commission' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
I understand that we are to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 44, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
These two Amendments are designed to deal with the division of responsibility as the matter stands at present. In our view, the Secretary of State should be wholly responsible for the administration of the family income supplement scheme. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) sought to discuss the possibility of the entire scheme being the responsibility of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but in our Amendments now we suggest that the responsibility should be accepted where it belongs, that is, by the Secretary of State.
As the Bill is drafted, there is a most unsatisfactory sharp division of responsibility, with responsibility for paying the family income supplement and for receiving claims resting with the Secretary of State, under Clause 5, while a whole range of determinations and decisions which will to a great extent, in effect, decide the scope and practical consequences of the Bill are left to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, under Clause 6.
If the Supplementary Benefits Commission was to be left with the responsibility of deciding a whole range of crucial questions very much affecting the families involved, why did the Secretary of State not pursue the logic of that argument and ask the Commission to undertake the whole responsibility? We conclude that there are reasons why the right hon. Gentleman did not take that course, and we wonder whether they have anything to do with the fact that virtually no independent body concerned with poverty has given the Bill any kind of welcome at all.
If that is the situation, and if, in consequence, the Secretary of State and his Department must take responsibility for the Bill, we argue that the responsibility should go rather further than it does under Clauses 5 and 6. As the Bill stands, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will have to decide a range of questions which are normally thought to be policy matters. For instance, it will be asked to decide such questions as what constitutes a family, a question which has been to some extent widened now because the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to give serious consideration to the position of grandparents, whether as part of a household with children or whether themselves responsible for their grandchildren. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has raised the question of foster-children. There is also the question of children in care and whether they constitute children for the purposes of the Bill. Again, as things stand, this will be a matter to be decided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
Let us suppose that a man spends part of the period of five weeks or slightly longer—the qualifying period for a family income supplement—in prison or other form of detention. It would be the Commission which will have to decide what his income ought rightly to be considered to be. Again, I understand that the period which will be taken as the proper period on which one can justify having a family income supplement will be a matter left to the Commission to decide. It will have to decide whether an occupation is such that a period of only two months is adequate for the basis of an application or whether the five weeks rule will suffice. Clearly, if families have

casual or seasonal earnings, or if the earner is in and out of work, all these questions will be of crucial importance.
Such questions must be resolved because, if they are not, Ministers will find that there are vast anomalies in relation to the 26-week period of FIS based upon what has happened in the five weeks or slightly more on which the income supplement is based. For example, if the husband is away and out of the house for the period of five weeks, possibly on a seasonal job, will he be considered a member of the family for the purpose of family income supplement?
Who decides where responsibility for children lies? Who decides whether a child is part of the family? I am referring here not to a foster-child or to a child in care but to a child who is not a blood relation but who has normally lived with the family in the past.
In short, what we see in the Bill—we have raised this matter time and again—is a disturbingly wide range of discretion. Some part of the discretion is left to regulations, and this is why we have as an Opposition probed and pushed so hard for the terms of the regulations to be defined in advance, so far as they can be.
9.0 p.m.
I turn to the other part of that range of discretion which will never be discussed by the House of Commons and which will not even be subject to the negative resolution procedure, under which most regulations fall, namely, that part which rests with the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell us why this range of discretion has passed, not just from the hands of the Secretary of State, but, from our point of view more seriously, from the position in which Parliament can question and can be the ultimately responsible body and is passed to the Commission.
It is not that we on this side of the Committee distrust the Supplementary Benefits Commission. We recognise that it is a body which almost invariably—though not invariably—tries to come down on the side of the applicant. But we are disturbed that the Commission is now being asked to undertake what one can only describe as a minimal policy rôle. We do not believe that this is


the job which the Commission was set up to do, and we do not think it fair of the Secretary of State to ask it to do this job.
We are dealing with a whole new range of benefits for families in work. Consequently, this range of discretion will have behind it no case law, no precedents—nothing of that kind—on which a body like the Supplementary Benefits Commission can depend. The decisions will be made afresh. They will be made against a background of no history at all. It is, therefore, even more disturbing that the Secretary of State and his colleagues should permit this power to pass to a body which is not directly answerable to Parliament.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission is desperately overworked, as all of us who are in the last interested in pensions and social security affairs know. The Under-Secretary of State will know, as I do, that the people who work for the Commission are working very long hours of compulsory overtime and, consequently, there are grave difficulties about recruiting to this no longer particularly attractive, though very dedicated, type of service. By putting so many more responsibilities on this body, we suspect that the Secretary of State and his colleagues may take it to breaking point. The Bill suggests that an additional 200 civil servants will be required. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary of State would make clear how they will be divided between the Ministry and the Commission so that we can know whether the Commission will be expected to take on this load in addition to the very heavy load which it carries now.
I wish to put to the Under-Secretary of State a question which will become all the more important if his reply is that he cannot accept the Amendments and we continue with this highly unsatisfactory position of divided responsibility. If that is his answer, I must ask him to give, if not the Committee, then the applicant the benefit of the doubt at every stage. This means that the House of Commons must ask to see the form upon which the application is made and, not the regulations laid before the House, but the codes of conduct which will be used in reaching decisions in the way in which codes of conduct are used in respect of supplementary benefit. Will the Under-Secre-

tary of State tell us whether any applicant whose case is to be decided, not at the appeal tribunal, but before the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will be permitted to be represented by a relation, trade union or an organisation such as the Child Poverty Action Group?
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not under-estimate the seriousness of this very unsatisfactory administrative situation, will say why the Supplementary Benefits Commission has not been given the whole responsibility, which we believe would be logical, and will reply to the questions about representation of the client and the means test form and will say whether Parliament will be able to survey and watch matters to try to make good what we believe to be a very serious lacuna in the Bill.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. If they argue, on the one hand, as they have just argued concerning disregards, that simplicity must be of the essence, they are caught with their own arguments concerning disqualifications. The lack of detail that we have had is frightening.
I hope that I will not be misunderstood when I say that if we as a Government had attempted to bring in a scheme like this, every hon. Member opposite would have accused us of creating a scrounger's paradise. I like to feel that it is a test of our genuine concern for unfortunate people that none of us has used that argument during the debate. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) hinted at it on Second Reading. We are entitled to more information.
In a Written Answer on 13th November dealing with Clause 6 and, to some extent, Clause 5, the impression was given that there would be 80 assessment offices. Does that mean that it will be only at those offices that inquiries can be made? It is no use the Minister saying that every assistance will be given at each local office throughout the country when he does not have, or does not seem to have, the support or the willingness to operate the scheme from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I do not think that the Minister has had proper regard for the staff who will be required.
Here, therefore, we get into a kind of hybrid situation. My hon. Friends argue that it should be a matter for the


Department of Social Security. I think that it should be a matter for the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Nevertheless, I want assurance that proper regard has been given to the acute staffing position in the local offices. Relationships with the public are difficult enough in dealing with the whole variety of people with serious social problems, but when we are dealing for the first time with wage earners, we obviously want to be assured that properly trained staff and adequate accommodation will be available.
What about disqualification? My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has mentioned prison. What about strikers? We hear a lot of hon. Members opposite thundering away about the gross abuse of public funds in helping the dependants of strikers. Will strike action be a disqualification, or is the Minister giving a categorical assurance that there will be practically no disqualification once an award has been made for 26 weeks? He cannot have it both ways. Is there to be simplicity on this side also?
Prison is another example which has been mentioned. I see nothing in the Bill which leads me to believe that there should be an exclusion, unless it is because a person is not in full-time employment when he is in prison. He may be deemed to be in full-time employment, but prison is not full-time employment under the definition.
The lack of information and the lack of detailed thought which has gone into these matters is appalling. I hope that we shall get more information when the Minister replies.

Mr. Dean: This has been an interesting debate. I hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee, because I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), in moving the Amendment, has somewhat misunderstood the position and how the scheme will work. What the hon. Lady has not, perhaps, fully appreciated is the clear distinction which will be drawn, as with all our social security arrangements, between the laying down of the structure of the scheme and the determination within that structure of the benefits to be made available to the people concerned.
The Bill and the regulations will lay down the structure of the scheme. The sort of things that we have been discussing on the Bill—the definition of earnings over the five-week period and the definition of a family, for example—are factors which are not specifically in the Bill but which will be laid down in regulations. In that sense, therefore, the Secretary of State is responsible and will be responsible to Parliament for the actual structure and definitions within the scheme.
I do not think the hon. Lady would want the Secretary of State to decide also to determine within the structure which he has laid down, which Parliament has agreed, exactly the entitlement of the individuals concerned; because, surely, we would then be in a position in which the Secretary of State, a Minister, would be judge and jury; we would be departing from the traditional structure which we have of independent statutory authorities who make decisions on these matters rather than a Minister himself. This, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), would agree, is a fundamental principle. He knows much more about the law than I do, but certainly in our National Insurance arrangements the determination of questions is made by statutory authorities who are independent of the Minister.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain a little more clearly what he means when he says that questions as to policy will be a matter for the Secretary of State through regulations. In subsection (1) we have a very clear statement:
Any question as to the right to or the amount of a family income supplement shall be referred to and determined by the Supplementary Benefits Commission
was a right of appeal. Are we to take it that what that really means is that this will be a purely mechanical procedure and that all the policy decisions will have been taken first by means of regulations? If that is so, then would the Under-Secretary of State say why he feels that, so far as this Clause is concerned, the negative resolution procedure is adopted, when, clearly, very important matters are going to be decided under it?

Mr. Dean: There is nothing unusual in the procedure being proposed here. The


intention of the structure of the scheme, with the definitions which are envisaged in the regulations, will be laid down by statute—in the Bill and in the regulations which will follow the Bill—with the due approval of Parliament, but the actual determination of entitlement, for example, is a function which the Commission will fulfil, in exactly the same way as the Commission fulfils very similar functions in regard to supplementary benefits at the present time. For example, various questions which have been discussed during these debates are very similar in type to the questions which the Commission determines now for supplementary benefit purposes. So there is clearly an exact parallel here between the legal framework, in the Bill and in the regulations, and the determination of entitlement within that framework, and the latter will be the task of the Commission, in much the same way as it is the task of the Commission to determine, within the framework laid down by Parliament, entitlement to supplementary benefit. The parallel is really very similar.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but is that really so? Surely, the position of the Supplementary Benefits Commission at the moment is that it is dealing with matters which are discretionary; it exercises its discretion. What I understand to be the purpose of this legislation is to give people a legal right to claim, where the combined effect of the Bill and the regulations provides for that situation. There is all the difference in the world between a body which is exercising and is used to exercising a discretion and a situation in which there is a legal right.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Dean: It is true that the commission has a discretion, and therefore it has more manoeuvring room than there is here but even there the commission's discretion is exercised within a framework which is laid down by Parliament and altered from time to time. The commission works from the basic scale rates and it has discretion over and above that so there is a fairly exact parallel here. The legal aid scheme, with which I have no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman is more familiar than I, is perhaps a more

exact parallel. The commission administers the legal aid scheme, and the procedure here will be similar to the function that it will have with regard to the legal aid scheme.
The effect of what the hon. Lady is proposing—and I am sure this is not what she intends—is that the Minister would be judge and jury. He would not only be laying down, with the approval of Parliament, what is in the Statute and in the regulations following from it, but he would also be determining the entitlement. That would be a substantial departure from the concept of independent statutory authorities determining these matters, which I feel sure both sides of the Committee agree is a valuable safeguard to individuals who think they are entitled to benefit, and also to Ministers who occasionally wish to appeal to the statutory authorities.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will be assured that we are following past precedent and practice, and that to adopt her suggestion would not be in the interests of the independent administration of this scheme or in the interest of ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done to the individuals concerned.

Mr. Peter Archer: I follow what the hon. Gentleman says about the determination of claims, although I would not wish to express myself as being in agreement. Will he now address himself to the other question which was asked? Why, in that case, is it suggested that the Secretary of State should receive claims and make payments? What is the distinction between the making of payments under this scheme and under the supplementary benefits scheme? Is it intended that the two should be duplicated?

Mr. Dean: I was coming on to that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). The administrative arrangements we envisage are that payments will be made from a central office rather than from offices dispersed throughout the country. This will produce administrative savings. The actual claims can and will be made through the local offices, but we envisage central payments, and the more we can achieve this as we get the scheme running the more administrative savings we shall get.
I was asked whether people who for a 26-week period are getting FIS payments will continue to receive payments regardless of the circumstances. Broadly speaking, the answer is "Yes". We intend to simplify the scheme as far as possible, and that is why we laid down a comparatively long period. A great many people will benefit from this. We were asked what would be the effect on sickness benefit. My right hon. Friend stated that the FIS payment will continue, and that is the answer to this question. I am not certain, off the cuff, what happens about someone who is in prison, but I suspect that in practice the wife and children will almost certainly be eligible for supplementary benefit, which in many cases will be at a higher rate than the FIS payment.
I hope with that explanation the hon. Lady and the Committee will feel reassured.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the end of his speech, may I ask whether he has said all he intends to say about the reasons for having this divided system? With respect, in the light of all he said before in explaining why the S.B.C. was giving the final decision in some cases, I thought his explanation about why it had not been chosen was a very lame one. It seemed to boil down to the S.B.C. not having a central office, but the hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that the S.B.C. could be asked to allocate one office for the purpose and could therefore administer the scheme.
If the hon. Gentleman takes the view which is put forward in the Amendments that because, in the words of his right hon. Friend, the Government are not setting up a parallel supplementary benefit scheme for those in work, the S.B.C. would not be the appropriate body, he has not satisfied us why quite considerable decisions will be made by the S.B.C. just the same.
If the hon. Gentleman is ending his speech, I press on him the last two questions to which he did not reply. They are quite crucial to asking Parliament to accept this scheme. We ask that the procedures, the rules of working and the application form shall all be put before Parliament so that we can at least exercise surveillance over this divided responsibility.

Mr. Dean: Yes, I readily reassure the hon. Lady on both those points. We intend to make the maximum information available to those who are likely to benefit. The whole intention of the take-up campaign is to do just this. The information will be made available to Parliament and to others who are interested.
I also give the hon. Lady the assurance for which she asked with regard to representation. People who wish to have help from relatives or friends will be able to have that help in making a claim in exactly the same way as when they are making a claim for supplementary benefit or any other allowance under our social service arrangements.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'affected by' and insert 'reduced by reason of'.
I am emboldened to hope that this Amendment will be accepted. The reason for this optimism is that in relation to Clauses 2 and 3 when we tabled Amendments suggesting that the figures in the Bill should be in an upward direction rather than either upward or downward as circumstances change and no doubt inflation gathers, the right hon. Gentleman in each case put down his own Amendments, Nos. 65 and 66, to accomplish the same purpose.
The Amendment I am now proposing is intended to have the same effect on the situation in Clause 6, under which it is now proposed that family income supplement as determined by the Commission shall be payable for a period of 26 weeks and that the rate at which it is payable shall not be as it reads at the moment:
affected by any change of circumstances during that period".
This seems to us to be a precise parallel to the circumstances of the earlier Clauses.
Although we would not wish to see the rate reduced during the course of this long period of 26 weeks, we see no reason why it should not be increased if circumstances arise which make it a hardship upon those concerned that it should continue at the same rate for what is after all a substantial period of half a year. Would the right hon. Gentleman suppose a situation involving a


person who has applied for F.I.S. and who, owing to his circumstances, has not been able to get it and perhaps a week or two later finds his circumstances change for the worse and is then able to reapply and would get it? As the Bill stands at the moment, a person who gets family income supplement and whose circumstances change for the worse during the period of 26 weeks, unless the regulations otherwise provide, will not be able to get any improvement in his family income supplement as a result of those changes of circumstances. This appears to be very odd and, indeed, to produce a situation of hardship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) asked how the regulations would work, and this is crucial to the point I am putting forward in this Amendment. If we were assured that the regulations would provide for the possibility of an increase during the 26-week period so much the better, but we want to know what is intended. Indeed, we want to know a great deal about these regulations. What, for example, will be the position of people who are on strike? What will be the situation of a woman who is in receipt of family income supplement but who ceases to cohabit? Is she by virtue of regulations to have the supplement immediately cut off? There are all kinds of situations of that kind which might arise and I hope that we shall be given answers on them. The main point of the Amendment is that we feel it to be logical and right that any change should be in an upward direction, and not as the Bill stands at the moment.

Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is tempting providence a little in moving the Amendment, although I accept that it is probably largely probing in nature to seek information about the Government's intentions. The Clause clearly lays down that the rate payable shall not be affected by change of circumstances during the period; that is, during the 26 weeks. In other words, the intention is neither to reduce it nor to increase it. Therefore, the optimistic parallel the hon. and learned Gentleman drew with earlier Amendments which we were able to accept in slightly changed form does not apply here.
9.30 p.m.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to press us to say that in no circumstances would regulations be introduced to reduce the amount during the 26-week period, I think that he would agree that we should probably also have to ask to take power to ensure that they were not increased either. Would not it be very much better in the circumstances for us to leave the situation as it is, with the assurance I have given that the whole essence of the arrangement, as we see it, is that the 26-week award system should stand, because of its simplicity and the other advantages which we discussed under earlier Amendments? It is a for-better, for-worse arrangement; it is a simpler arrangement. It is not the intention that there should be either an increase or a reduction during that period. I hope that in view of that explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish to press his Amendment.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am by no means satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's answer. In particular, he does not seem to me to have dealt at all with the point of the parallel between the person who gets nothing and then can apply a short time afterwards and the person who happens to have been successful in his application and may suffer a drastic change of circumstances for the worse during the period of 26 weeks.
I should have been much happier if the hon. Gentleman had felt able at least to say that he would look into that point and, although I would not ask him to give any undertaking to make a change on Report, at any rate consider the kind of situations which have been shown as being likely to arise and see whether there is any possibility of dealing with them. If the hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me and give such an undertaking now, that would make me much happier.

Mr. Dean: I think I can help the hon. Gentleman. What I can tell him is that if a person would be in a more favourable position, if he would get a larger F.I.S. by claiming rather later, then that is a valid point, and I can give him the assurance that it is the sort of point we will examine to ensure that it is met effectively through regulations.

Mr. Siikin: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In view of that


undertaking, so far as it goes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

APPEALS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly at this late hour, but there is one matter to which I invite the sympathetic attention of the Secretary of State. It is a problem which is admittedly not of his making, but he has the power to mitigate some of the hardships which might arise. It arises on some of the appeals which will no doubt lie under the Clause.
An appeals procedure is pointless if it is incomprehensible to those who are pursuing the appeals. The difficulties arose in the first instance, I think, because we insisted on having our social welfare provisions within the framework of the ultra vires doctrine. It all began with the desire to ensure that we limited the power of officials to interfere in the lives of individuals. Although that is understandable, it also ensured that it limited their power to help individuals.
We cannot have it both ways. If we insist that officials remain within the rules, we cannot complain when they do. If then there are objections about red tape, these all flow from this decision. But there it is. We have taken the decision now and the framework of our welfare legislation and regulations lies within it. But the effect is that they are drafted as legal terminology. The whole method is a legal method, and we have created a sphere of law where those unfortunate enough to be involved require the maximum guidance.
Judging from previous experience, the claimant who makes use of the machinery of appeals will hear mysterious references to Section 1(1)(b) and to Regulation 47. He will no doubt wonder what it all has to do with paying his grocer's bill. He may receive a sympathetic hearing, but I would be surprised if it is comprehensible to him. If his claim is disallowed, he may

be left feeling that it has been disallowed for reasons which he did not understand. The connection between what the appeal tribunal was talking about and what matters to him will, at the lowest, not be obvious.
The ideal solution would be to make legal aid and advice available in these tribunals. I appreciate that that does not lie within the right hon. Gentleman's province, and, clearly, I shall be out of order in pursuing that point. But there is a way whereby the right hon. Gentleman might mitigate some of the difficulties which arise.
At the moment, even for social workers, trade union officials, and lawyers to intervene in this sphere is rather like navigating a completely unfamiliar water without a chart and without instruments. So far as I am aware, there is virtually no practitioners' textbook on the subject. There are some relatively good indices, but few libraries have them—even legal libraries. There are volumes of regulations and previous decisions, but they are hoarded like gold by the authorities, and it is difficult even for counsel appearing at the tribunals to find them. If there are these difficulties for trade unionists, social workers and lawyers, we can only guess how it must appear for the individual claimant, unassisted, who is trying to find his way through this maze of legislation, regulations and decisions.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could assist by making available the Act, the regulations and the volumes of decisions to all who want to use and are capable of using them. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should make a free presentation copy to everybody concerned, but if he places them where they are easily available—in the offices of whoever administer these matters—it would be a real contribution. I am not asking for a firm commitment this evening. I ask the right hon. Gentleman only to undertake to give it his serious consideration.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the opportunity of taking a little further the argument about appeals, so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), by raising in particular the legal


framework or otherwise in which the Bill will be couched.
I understand that my Amendments were not called because their being germane to the whole purpose of the Clause, it was felt that they could be discussed as easily on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Therefore, I am glad to look at the question of appeals with a special eye to the alternative structure for appeals envisaged in the Amendments.
Clause 7(3) lays down:
The Appeal Tribunal … shall be … constituted in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966".
That Schedule governs appeals concerning entitlement to supplementary allowances and pensions.
For several reasons I believe that it would be entirely inappropriate to transpose the appeals procedure governing supplementary benefits to the question of entitlement under the Bill. The central reason is that the supplementary benefits appeal tribunals are largely concerned with the exercise of discretion. By contrast, F.I.S. is clearly a matter of legal entitlement and the only Question that will arise are matters of fact and of law. For this reason, this F.I.S. scheme gives no discretionary powers to the commission or to the appeal tribunals, and therefore it is unsuitable that appeals under this scheme should go before these tribunals.
F.I.S. has far more in common with national insurance than with supplementary benefits. I might add, in case this is alleged against the statement that I am making, that the fact that F.I.S. is not an insurance benefit is not relevant, since family allowances, which are equally not insurance benefits, are also dealt with under national insurance tribunals. In this respect one might do well to look at F.I.S. as a kind of supplementary family allowance.
More positively, there are several definite advantages to be derived from putting questions relating to F.I.S. before the National Insurance tribunal. One is that the chairman is more likely than in the case of a supplementary benefits tribunal to be legally qualified, which seems to be more suitable for dealing with explicitly legal matters.
Another advantage is that the insurance tribunals are already exercised in the knotty problems of the definition of what exactly constitutes a family, or household or cohabitation, or indeed wiht such intricacies as exactly what is a "part child". Clause 1(1,c) refers to:
the child or children whose requirements have to be provided for, in whole or in part …".
I wonder what a supplementary benefits appeals tribunal is likely to make out of that. How does that relate to a child in local authority care? It is precisely these esoteric matters that insurance tribunals dealing with family allowances are already well versed in.
Third, why duplicate the existing appeals machinery? There has been such a burgeoning of tribunals that what is needed is rationalisation rather than any unnecessary proliferation.
My second main reason for disagreeing with the Clause is that the decision of supplementary benefits tribunals is final. This has certain crucial implications. First, there is no system of precedents, and every case is dealt with on its merits. The inevitable result of this will be to encourage the multiplication of appeals, and surely that is not what the Government really intend.
Second, under the Clause numerous points of law which are bound to arise in the early days of the scheme will have to be taken to the Divisional Court, and there will have to be the lengthy and costly procedure of applying for one of the prerogative orders, whether an order of mandamus or certiorari. The Secretary of State may be disinclined to believe that that will happen. If so, I assure him that with the increasing number of lawyers who are concerned with the whole aspect of welfare rights, with the undercurrents flowing very strongly at the moment towards the formation of a welfare rights movement, a citizens' rights office, call it what one will, all the signs point in the direction that that is precisely what will happen.
Third, and this is very important, if appeals are dealt with by the national appeals tribunals there will be a further right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner who, by Statute, must be an advocate or barrister of at least 10 years' standing, and in effect could be


said to have the standing of a High Court judge.
That, I submit, has several important advantages. Most obviously, from what I have already said, it will relieve the Divisional Court from the burden of processing endless appeals. More particularly, it will establish a firm system of precedents, and it will enable precise and definite judgements to be formed about such surprisingly nebulous concepts as what exactly is "family" or "cohabitation", based on past judgments clearly revealed in the volumes of the Commissioner's decisions.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State, both because of the clear and important advantages to be derived from setting F.I.S. within the appeals system of the National Insurance tribunals, and also because of the equally clear dysfunction of leaving F.I.S. with regard to appeals where it stands under the Clause, to give the proposed change the very closest scrutiny and, I hope, his sympathy.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Dean: The two hon. Members who have spoken have to some extent been talking at cross purposes. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) made the valid point that we want the simplest procedure, because we want the people to understand what this is about. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), on the other hand, put forward powerful arguments—his arguments are always powerful—suggesting an appeals procedure that would tend to legalise and make more difficult, remote and forbidding to the individual the procedure that we are proposing.
The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton asked what steps we proposed to take to try to make the understanding of the scheme as simple as possible to those who were likely to benefit. We intend to have a take-up campaign which will be extremely carefully planned, with the intention of getting the maximum possible uptake of this benefit. We attach the greatest importance to that, and we shall be using the various media of communications and the various methods available to us, including our local offices and, we hope, the good offices of local authorities, voluntary bodies, and so on.
But we are prepared to go one step further than the hon. Member asked; we are prepared to consider publishing something on lines similar to the supplementary benefits handbook. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that that handbook has been immensely useful not only to them, in their constituency work, but to many outside people who are concerned in the running of our welfare services. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that we are seriously considering the possibility of doing something on those lines.
I now come to the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He suggested that the more satisfactory appeal machinery would be the National Insurance machinery rather than the Supplementary Benefits Commission machinery. I want to explain why we feel that the latter machinery would be better—and some of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton were valid in this connection. Under the National Insurance Act a large part of the adjudication consists of interpreting in precise, legal terms, and with due regard to commissioners' case law, the substantial and complex body of Acts and regulations that make up the National Insurance system.
The National Insurance appeal procedure also deals with appeals concerning family allowances. The local proceedings are always presided over by legally-qualified chairmen, and inevitably their procedures are somewhat more formal than those of the supplementary benefits appeal tribunal. I should have thought that the more formal procedure that is necessary for the National Insurance scheme is not desirable for a scheme of this kind; that the less formal and more friendly—in the best sense of that term—procedure that can be adopted under the supplementary benefits system is more suitable for a scheme of this kind.
There is also the point that this scheme—as the supplementary benefits scheme—will be concerned primarily with questions of fact, such as a claimant's normal gross income, and very much more the sort of question that is now determined under the supplementary benefits appeal procedure rather than the national insurance procedure. It is largely for


those reasons that we feel that the objectives so effectively outlined by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton are more likely to be achieved through the procedure laid down in this Clause than under the procedure suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

PREVENTION OF DOUBLE PAYMENTS AND RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'is' to end of line 38 and insert:
'proved to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction that any such sum would not have been paid if any person making a claim therefor had not knowingly failed to disclose material facts'.
This is a probing Amendment, but in the sense that the existing provisions might attract a good deal of criticism. They say:
Regulations may provide for the recovery of sums paid by way of family income supplement where it is found that the sums were not due and the persons by whom the sums were receivable cannot satisfy the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the Appeal Tribunal that they had disclosed all material facts.
In other words, the burden is placed upon the person who has received a supplement. If he cannot prove that he has disclosed all material facts, even if his failure is not fraud but accidental and inadvertent failure, the sums can be recovered from him. That seems harsh.
The Amendment puts the matter the other way around and would provide that it would be for the Secretary of State to satisfy the court, where the person concerned might have legal aid, that the sum in question would not have been paid if the claimant had not only failed to disclose the material facts but had done so knowingly. There must be an element of fraud before the sum can be recovered.
The Secretary of State knows, because he has said this again and again, that the people we are talking about will not

be well versed in the law or expert in completing documents. It is a real hardship if all the burden of establishing that they have made no mistake is placed on them. The means of these people are inevitably low: they would not come under the Bill otherwise.
Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? I do not suggest that our wording is best, but we should like some reassurance.

Sir K. Joseph: I sympathise with the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am impressed by the homework done by hon. Members opposite. What I am about to say is not a judgment on that homework, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing the Amendment under a misapprehension. I can give him the reassurance he seeks.
The problem is not one of deciding whether the claimant has committed a crime of any sort. There is no question of an offence under this Clause. We come to questions of offence later, under Clause 12. We are considering whether a repayment is necessary or justified. The procedure we propose is precendented in all the main social security legislation—National Insurance and family allowance—and was included in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill which was introduced by the last Government but did not become law because of the election. The same procedure for recovering repayments at the discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission or, on appeal, the appeals tribunal, was included. There is, therefore, no departure from precedent.
Courts are not involved, as no offence is involved. Courts are not equipped to decide whether a payment was made to a claimant on a statement that turned out to be false. There is no question of judging the claim to have been fraudulent.
With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel reassured and able not to press the Amendment.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: First, may I give my reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment was not put down under any misapprehension? We were well aware that there were other provisions in the Bill dealing with criminal offences. What we were concerned about,


however, was the manner in which recovery of over-payments could be made. When I said that we were not wedded to the precise way of accomplishing what we have in mind as expressed in the Amendment, I meant that we were not wedded to the court of summary jurisdiction procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is by no means confined to criminal matters. It deals with many others.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the main points and that he will not take it that provisions which have been followed in the past must never be looked at again.
The main point here is putting the burden upon the person who appears to the Commission to have been overpaid to satisfy the Commission that he has disclosed all material facts. That seems a harsh provision. If between now and Report the right hon. Gentleman can look at it again—never mind the manner in which it may be altered—the Opposition will be grateful.
I recognise that our proposal may not be a satisfactory way of accomplishing what we have in mind. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Family Income Supplements Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fortescue

Orders of the Day — FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 3, line 42, leave out from 'supplement' to end of line 45.
After that agreeable respite in our deliberations, if that is a way in which it

may be regarded, I come to what is more than a probing Amendment.
The words which we propose to leave out are unprecedented in the law of National Insurance, pensions and other State payments. If anyone has been overpaid supplementary benefit, he may be required to repay either in a lump sum, or in weekly instalments, and, as a constituency Member, one comes across these cases from to time. However, as the law stands, no other kind of State benefit has a provision for money to be recovered in this manner.
Section 26(2,c) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 specifically excludes from treatment as earnings:
pensions, allowances or benefit payable under any of the enactments specified in Schedule 6 to this Act (being enactments relating to social security).
That Schedule 6 provides that enactments providing benefits which are not to be treated as debtor's earnings are the National Insurance Act, 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, the Family Allowances Act, 1965, the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967.
It appears that the Secretary of State is taking unprecedented powers badly balanced in favour of the Executive rather than the individual claimant. Under this subsection, and perhaps under the Clause as a whole, there seems to be a complete absence of a procedure for payment if the individual recipient finds that he has been under paid. I thought hard to find reasons why the Government should have introduced these words. We can only assume that the Government have decided that, at least initially, there will be a substantial number of miscalculations by individual officers in the operation of the scheme, and they have felt justified in taking these extraordinary and unprecedented powers to obtain recovery of overpayments from benefits which, under the general law, are inalienable. We are most concerned, and we await the right hon. Gentleman's explanation.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Sir K. Joseph: Again, the bulk of the powers here are perfectly normal within the social security mechanism. There


are provisions for recovery of excess payments of National Insurance benefit or of family allowance from national insurance benefits. There is a danger in the payment of this supplement of an over-payment due to an understatement of income being corrected by the cutting off of further family income supplement, with, therefore, no source of repayment to the taxpayer of money overpaid.
I am, therefore, on solid ground, and I assure the Committee that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) who does his homework thoroughly, is for once wrong in his assertion that the powers are unprecedented.
There was, however, one point raised by the hon. Gentleman on which I am not quite so sure of my ground. The Bill as drafted gives power to recover an overpayment of family income supplement from future family allowances, and it was the Government's intention that that power would never be used if the family was in need of the money. We are dealing here with families who are bound to be poor, if not very poor, and, although there may have been overpayments of family income supplement it is highly unlikely that the family will be other than pretty poor. On reflection, therefore, after listening to the hon. Gentleman, I think that I ought to reconsider the new power which is covered by the Amendment, namely, the power to recover an overpayment from future family allowances.
I give the assurance that I shall look again at that element in the Clause. It would not be met by passing the Amendment. I assure the Committee that the hon. Member for Rotherham is technically wrong and that all the other powers of repayment from other national insurance benefits are perfectly precedented and not at all unusual in this case. I hope that the Committee on that assurance, which I shall honour on Report, will encourage the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.

Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the undertaking which he has given as regards family allowances, which deals with part of the problem which concerns us.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that I am wrong, but I understand the

position to be this. If someone has been overpaid in a particular kind of benefit paid under national insurance, the matter can be put right by deductions from similar kinds of National Insurance benefit, but not from different kinds. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that, for example, one cannot claim overpayments of supplementary benefit from National Insurance payments. Is that not so?
Take the case of a pensioner who is getting a National Insurance retirement pension. She makes a claim and receives a weekly supplementary pension from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is discovered at a later date that there has been overpayment. There is a request from the Commission that there should be a repayment. Surely I am right in saying that the Commission has no power to require the repayment from the woman's National Insurance benefit. Therefore, to that extent, the Secretary of State will concede that a new principle is being invoked.
Perhaps the Secretary of State would, without commitment, consider the other matters which I raised. He says that I am wrong, but I am wrong in a very limited way. In the broader sense, I think that I am right. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider all the points that I have raised I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am sure that the Secretary of State is wrong because he is confusing a non-contributory benefit with a contributory benefit. Is he suggesting that an overpayment of family income supplement can be recovered from a widow? That is what he appears to be arguing.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that it would be prudent of me if I were to say that I shall look at the point again. I am advised that under Section 26(4) of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, the propositions which I have indicated are correct. It would be most imprudent of me to give too many assurances without looking again at what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said. I am impressed by his self-confident mastery of the intricacies of the social security mechanism. I will report again to hon. Members at the next stage of the Bill.
I am not happy about the implications of recovery of family allowances. That is on the substance. On the presentation point, I will tell the House either that I am right or that the hon. Gentleman is right. If the hon. Gentleman is right, I will see whether any Amendments need to be made.

Mr. O'Malley: In view of the Secretary of State's undertakings, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

RECOVERY OF COST IN CERTAIN CASES

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I wish to oppose the Clause and to try to persuade the Secretary of State to withdraw it from the Bill.

Mrs. Knight: Hear, hear.

Miss Pike: Like many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I have not sought to delay the proceedings this evening by repeating arguments which have already been ably put. I want to be as brief and clear as possible in persuading the Minister to withdraw the Clause.
The Clause applies to the Bill the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which enable the Supplementary Benefits Commission to recover from a husband or father the cost of any supplementary benefit paid to a family and in respect of illegitimate children to obtain affiliation orders or apply for payment under existing orders to be made to the Department. As the Clause stands, any unsupported mother who claims family income supplement will be expected to supply information about her husband or the putative father of her children from whom, as under the supplementary benefit provisions, repayment can be claimed and the man followed up.
While these provisions are appropriate in the case of supplementary benefit, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that they are not appropriate to a scheme

such as this. Family income supplement can be claimed only by a woman who has made the choice to go into full time work to support herself and her family instead of relying upon supplementary benefit. It is only a relatively small supplement to her income and, most important, only 50 per cent. makes good any shortfall in the woman's income. It is unlikely, therefore, that there would be any temptation to collusion between man and wife, as there is sometimes in the case of supplementary benefit.
10.15 p.m.
We have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister in all his pleas that the Bill should be as simple as possible and, equally, that it should provide as little deterrent as possible against people claiming benefit. I believe that the provisions of the Clause, which I do not believe that the Minister would intend to use except in exceptional circumstances, would nevertheless prove a deterrent to many women in applying for benefit. In these circumstances, I ask the Minister to remove the Clause from the Bill.

Mrs. Knight: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) in her plea. The House of Commons should do everything possible to help and support women who are making an effort in a very difficult situation to support their child who has no father. Because I feel strongly that the Clause would be a positive disincentive to a woman to stand on her own feet—indeed, it would almost force her to apply for supplementary benefit full-time—I emphasise my support for my hon. Friend.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Time is getting on and the matter has been ventilated so eloquently by both hon. Ladies who have spoken from the Government benches that it is quite sufficient for me to do no more than say that we on this side have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view which they have expressed. We would certainly like to hear from the Secretary of State why that point of view should be wrong.

Sir K. Joseph: I assure the Committee that the Clause was put in perfectly innocently, but it has been misunderstood and a number of organisations have


drawn the conclusion that we intend to harry any unsupported mother, before helping her with the supplement, to secure the name of the putative father of the child in order to extract payment from him. It was not our intention in any way to harry the women whom we seek to help.
The points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Melton (Miss Pike) and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) are valid, and there is only the slightest possible risk of collusion or abuse if we remove the Clause. I therefore think that their arguments are such that the Committee would be wise to accept them and to delete the Clause from the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 10

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

REGULATIONS

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 4, line 22, leave out 'having, or as not having, to provide' and insert:
'providing or as not providing'.
This Amendment is consequential on an Opposition Amendment which the Committee, on the Government's advice, accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 5, line 8, at end insert:
(2A) Regulations may make different provision for different classes of case and otherwise for different circumstances.
This is a point which is to be inserted in the Bill by both Government and Opposition perception, that we might need powers to provide in the regulations different treatment for different classes of claimant. I do not think that, after all this probing of the variety of circumstances in which claimants might find themselves, the Committee will need me now to argue the need for the powers involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'section 2 or section 3'and insert 'sections 2, 3, 4 and 5'.

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment, if it is convenient to the Committee, we can take also Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'section 2 or section 3' and insert 'sections 2, 3, 4 or 5'.

Mr. Silkin: During the discussions on various Clauses it has become quite apparent that matters of very great substance are going to be dealt with by regulations. When one compares this Bill with the Ministry of Social Security Act, to which reference is made in one or two places in this Bill, and with which comparisons have been made, one finds that here there is far less definition of what is proposed in this Bill than there was definition in that Act. That Act is far more specific about the various questions it is to cover than anything we find in the Bill, as it stands, is specific of what this Bill is to do, and a tremendous amount is left to be dealt with by regulations.
We understand that this Bill may have been produced in some haste, and that that may be the reason why the regulations are to deal with so much. We understand what the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State have said, that on many question relating to this area of poverty they feel that their information at the moment is not sufficient for them to put forward positive proposals. I think that we on this side of the Committee are probably better informed.
What concerns us is that the procedure which enables Parliament to debate a regulation before it is made is confined at the moment to those regulations made under Clauses 2 and 3. When I heard the Secretary of State reply to the criticisms which were made about Clause 4, for example, when he said that regulations to be made would be such as to prevent abuses, that fortified me in the view which we have on this side of the Committee that a good deal more should be subject to the affirmative procedure than is at present proposed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he said, for example, that the sort of situation which was envisaged was that where, somehow or another, earned income of a


parent would be diverted to the child. We should want to know what sort of cases he has in mind and to study them carefully before we approved that kind of regulation.
This is a matter that could be developed at some length. The more that we on this side of the House have heard of the intentions of the Government with regard to regulations, particularly their intentions about laying down the policy and leaving the Supplementary Benefits Commission simply to act as a mechanical body for putting the policy into effect, the more we feel that we have been unduly moderate in suggesting that only regulations under Clauses 4 and 5 should be subject to the affirmative procedure as well as those under Clauses 2 and 3. It may be that we shall want to return to this matter at a later stage, but for the moment we are content to ask the Committee that those two Clauses should be added.

Sir K. Joseph: I confess straight away that there are a lot of regulation powers in the Bill, and we shall be laying regulations. The main reason is the need for speed in getting the supplement into payment. I do not blame the Opposition for at least probing the possibility of making more of the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The difficulty is that, if we are to get the supplement into payment at the beginning of August, we shall have to move very fast after the Royal Assent. We shall want to lay regulations covering Clauses 4 and 5 as soon as possible after the Royal Assent. If we switch from negative to affirmative procedure we shall not be able to lay those regulations probably until the end of January. Not until we have laid the regulations can we get on with the printing of the forms and the distribution of the detailed manual of instruction which will have to be studied by the staff we shall be recruiting for the payment of the supplement.

The Committee will be aware that the substance of Clause 4, namely, the resources to be taken into account, has been fairly fully debated today, and that I have made undertakings to come back on Report on a number of points where there was doubt. As for Clause 5, I do not think there has been any criticism about the method of making the claim, although I have been out of the Chamber for about an hour and I am not myself dealing with that Clause. Both these subjects have been discussed to the extent that the Committee wished. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to take into account our need to lay these regulations as soon as possible after Royal Assent and not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Booth: I do not think that the Secretary of State's explanation is good enough. He should at least explain to the Committee why it takes longer to deal with regulations made under the affirmative procedure than it does under the negative procedure. In both cases the regulations have to lie before Parliament for a certain number of days. If the regulations are laid under the negative procedure and there is a debate after that number of days it makes no difference to the Instrument and the debate becomes a hypothetical exercise.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but we are not satisfied. He has had the whole of the long hot summer in which to make preparation. We feel that this is a matter of important principle and that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of considering the regulations before they come into effect. In those circumstances, we have no option but to ask the Committee to divide.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 168.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Booth, Albert
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)




Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Sillars, James


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Galpern, Sir Myer
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
McManus, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Horam, John
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman



Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Perry, Ernest G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John
Ml. William Hamling.


Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey
Gorst, John
McMaster, Stanley


Awdrey, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boscawen, R. T.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Burden, F. A.
Hicks, Robert
Monro, Hector


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockeram, Eric
Hornby, Richard
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Neave, Airey


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Nicholls. Sir Harmar


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)


Crowder, F. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Curran, Charles
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean Paul
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert


Dixon, Piers

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain







Stainton, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stewart-Smith D. C. (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Waddington, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hon. George


Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth
THE TELLERS FOR NOES:


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Question proposed, That Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Booth: I hesitate to delay the Committee at this hour, but the Clause should not pass without the Secretary of State indicating whether he considers that it will be necessary for him to make a regulation under it to deal with the position of the seasonal worker, or one who is deemed to be a seasonal worker under our National Insurance rules for the purposes of unemployment benefit.
I understand that if a person establishes a pattern of work over a period of three years during which he is in and out of work for the same months in each of the three years, he is deemed for National Insurance purposes to be a seasonal worker and therefore does not have an unemployment benefit entitlement.
It seems to follow that if a person has passed into work from a period when he has been out of work which was considered to be seasonal, he would not be able to claim family income supplement on the basis of his earnings for the preceding five weeks, because he would not have been earning or getting unemployment benefit in the preceding five weeks. Therefore, as I read the Bill, there is no provision enabling the seasonal worker to claim family income supplement when he is in work. I should be grateful, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would answer this question.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The five-weeks rule for evidence of earnings is only a guideline. In such a situation the man would go along with, or would send, evidence of his first week's earnings. If those earnings justified family income supplement, it would be paid to him for a limited period of, say, six weeks. At the end of five weeks he would be able to show five weeks' evidence of earnings, which would then give him an entitlement to renewal for 26 weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'last' and insert 'first'.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we were to take Amendment No, 59, in page 5, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 60, in page 6, line 8, leave out 'last' and insert 'first'.
And Amendment No. 61, in page 6, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Silkin: I know that we have some even more important matters to deal with than these Amendments. Therefore, I shall be extremely brief.
Subsection (2) provides that proceedings may be brought against anybody
… at any time within the period of three months from the date on which evidence, sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State to justify a prosecution for the offence, comes to his knowledge, or within the period of twelve months from the commission of the offence, whichever period last expires.
We cannot understand why three months from the date when the Secretary of State has sufficient evidence should not be sufficient. Therefore, the purpose of the Amendment is to substitute "first expires" for "last expires".
The other Amendments are concerned with subsection (3), which provides that, for the purpose of proving when the Secretary of State acquired his knowledge,
… a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State … shall be conclusive evidence thereof.
We feel that in criminal proceedings a matter of this kind should be properly proved; it should not be sufficient that a document signed by a civil servant should be accepted as "conclusive evidence thereof". We, therefore, move to leave out that subsection.

Mr. Dean: I can deal equally briefly with the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Clause follows what can now be called the time-hallowed practice in social security matters. It is modelled


exactly on the arrangements for timing and so on which have existed in the sphere of National Insurance for a long time. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that unless there are substantial arguments for departing from the normal practice in these matters it would be better to follow the precedents which have already been set. This the Clause does.

Mr. Silkin: Even on this side of the Committee we have felt that sometimes the Government might be able to improve what has been done in the past. Apparently that is not so. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

COMMENCEMENT OF FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 7, line 11, at end insert:
'Not being later than the fifth day of April 1971'.
The previous Amendment might have been phrased that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, but I come now to the question of the commencement date, and I must press the right hon. Gentleman about this.
The right hon. Gentleman will have to admit that there is a most unfortunate contrast between the urgency of the tax cut of about £300 million which goes mainly to the better off, and takes effect in early April, and the £7 million for the poorest, who must wait until August. In one case there is special provision which anticipates the Budget, and to some extent ties the Chancellor's hands. In the other case they must wait for the extra expense that will be incurred in the meantime. They will have to pay higher fares as a result of the withdrawal of grants. They will have to pay higher prices as prices rise. They will probably be faced with the introduction and extension of fair rent provisions to council

housing as well. It is intolerable that the worst off should be the ones who have to wait the longest. What is more, if the alternative methods which have been suggested from this side of the House had been accepted, such as, for example, the suggestion of Professor Abel-Smith, not only could a larger sum have been allotted but it could have taken effect from 1st April.
The right hon. Gentleman has pleaded administrative impossibility. When he was in Opposition he was impatient of administrative impossibility. I could, but I shall not, cite what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1964 about supplementary benefits. When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister for Housing and Local Government he speeded up certain procedures. I think that he should show the sense of urgency that he showed in Opposition, and to some extent in office, and move the date forward, and not allow this intolerable position to arise.

Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to persuade my right hon. Friend that the date should be brought forward. My right hon. Friend said on Second Reading that he regretted as much as anyone else in the House that it was not possible to introduce this scheme until next August. One reason why this is so is that no plans were being prepared to deal with family poverty when we took office. That is one reason why it was necessary to start from scratch.

Mr. O'Malley: rose—

Mr. Dean: In a moment. It was necessary to start from scratch to produce this scheme, and that is one reason why we are not able to introduce it before next August.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman should not distort the facts. The truth is that any Government coming into office after the July Election could have brought in increased family allowances next April instead of waiting until August.

Mr. Dean: What I am saying is that we have produced this scheme in a very short time, and that we are introducing it as early as we possibly can. My right hon. Friend would have preferred to introduce it earlier, but a whole series of preparations has to take place, material has to be prepared, the staff has to be


recruited, the take-up campaign has to be carried out, and eventually the claims have to be assessed. All this inevitably takes time.
My right hon. Friend and I have gone extremely carefully into the point of the date of introduction. If we compare this with the family allowances scheme, introduced many years ago, we find that there is a distinct contrast in the matter of timing. In that period it took about 18 months from the time when the Bill was introduced into Parliament to the time when the scheme was put into operation; on this occasion the scheme is being introduced in about eight months, so the Committee can see the contrast, and the way in which it has been possible to speed up the procedures.
It is not through want of good will. The work being done on this is being done at the greatest possible speed and with the greatest possible urgency. The good will is there. It is just not physically possible to introduce a scheme at the date suggested in the Amendment. My right hon. Friend has said that it is his firm intention that if it is possible to do the necessary preparatory work before the target date of 1st August that will be done.

Mr. Taverne: In view of the time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(1) Within a period of one month from the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall appoint a Family Income Supplements Advisory Committee consisting of a Chairman and not less than ten other members.
(2) Before any regulations are made by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act the Secretary of State shall consult the Family Income Supplements Advisory Committee thereon.
(3) The Family Income Supplements Advisory Committee shall at intervals not less frequent that once yearly report to Parliament upon the operation of this Act and for the said purpose the Secretary of State shall supply

to the said Committee such information as it may require of him.
(4) Each such report as is in the preceding sub-section referred to shall in particular estimate the proportion of families entitled to benefit under the provisions of this Act which has in fact received such benefit.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In view of the lateness of the hour I shall move the new Clause extremely briefly. There are two main points to make. The purpose is, first, to set up an advisory committee to which the Secretary of State can turn in the administration of the Bill. We have had long debates about the Bill, in the course of which it has emerged that many things are not known. In the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State himself said that the Bill would give him contact with the poorest working households, and he went on to say that far too little is known about them.
We very strongly urge the Minister to set up an advisory committee, thus bringing the Bill into line with the position under the National Insurance Acts—there is a National Insurance Advisory Committee—and the Industrial Injuries Act—there is an Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee. The Supplementary Benefits Commission acts as an advisory committee, too. There is also the War Pensions Central Advisory Committee. In the case of all these bodies, which closely parallel the attempt being made in this scheme, there are discussions with interested bodies—employers' organisations and trade unions—and an opportunity for them to consider matters arising under those Acts. Yet all those Acts are clearer and involve less dependence on regulations, and less dependence on a divided system of responsibility, than the present scheme. If ever a Bill cried out for an advisory committee this Bill does. We hope that the Secretary of State will see that there are powerful arguments for an advisory committee in a field about which too little is known.
The second point—to which I believe the Government are to some extent morally bound—is dealt with by subsections (3) and (4), which together require that there should be an annual report


which should indicate the uptake of the scheme. In the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman said:
We will do our very best, by the most elaborate take-up campaign … to reach all the households we possibly can … The finances presume that we shall have an 85 per cent. take up. I will do my best to do that, and better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 227–8.]
We are sure he will, but we want to know whether or not he has succeeded. Therefore, the argument for having an annual report indicating the extent of his success is in our eyes crucial to the right hon. Gentleman's good faith and to the effort that he is attempting to make in the Bill to reach those poor families. I therefore press this new Clause upon the right hon. Gentleman, and very much hope that he will accept it. It is seen by us as being crucial to the improvement of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: I well understand the case of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Shirley Williams). It makes good sense, if this supplement is to be a permanent feature of our social security arrangements, to have some system of surveillance. But we do not yet know how permanent this supplement will need to be. Some, I believe all, of us hope that the economy itself will eliminate the need of the poorest of the poor, because they will cease to be in such poverty.

It would not be wise of the Committee to saddle the country with another advisory committee at this first stage. There is also a time problem. I have explained, and the Committee, I think, grudgingly accepts, that we will have to hasten extremely with the regulations. We would not have time to put them to a new advisory committee.

But I can assure the hon. Lady and the whole Committee that the Government will be anxious to lay before the House and the country all the relevant information that we get from the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. We shall not be coy about the information. By Parliamentary Question, by statement, by any other mechanism which seems appropriate, we shall lay before the country the information—and it may be very valuable information—about people for whose standard of living we are all very much concerned.

In the light of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the new Clause. But I know that the Opposition take it very seriously, and if it is pressed, I must, in the light of the considerations that I have mentioned, ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist it.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 168.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[10.57 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McManus, Frank


Clark, David (Colno Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Pendry, Tom


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest G.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David
Prescott, John




Probert, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roper, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rose, Paul B.
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Taverne, Dick



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. William Hamling and


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Sillars, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David


Awdry, Daniel
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Benyon, W.
Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)


Boscawen, R. T.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bray, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hon. Francis


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, Ralph (Norfok, North)
Redmond, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Coombs, Derek
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Soref, Harold


Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Sproat, Iain


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Curran, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Antony
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lane, David
Sutcliffe, John


Dean, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Waddington, David



Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walder, David (Clitheroc)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Warren, Kenneth


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilkinson, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Woodnutt, Mark


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernie
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie



Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Keith Speed and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Mr. Hugh Rossi.

New Clause 3

AMENDMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT, 1970.

In Schedule 6 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 the following shall be added at the end of the Schedule:—
'The Family Incomes Supplements Act 1970'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the Clause is that by virtue of Section 26 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, any benefits payable under the Bill would not be counted as earnings of a debtor to form the basis for a calculation of the sum to be deducted by his employer in respect of an attachment of earnings order for the purposes of a judgment debt or maintenance order. In this respect the Bill would be on a par with various other social service and National Insurance benefits, such as the National Insurance Act, 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries Act), 1965, the Family Allowances Act, 1965, the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967. Adding the Bill to the list would be a logical addition, and I trust that the Government will agree to the Clause.

Mr. Dean: The eagle eye of the hon. Member has been used to good effect and I recommend the Committee to accept the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorow, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I suppose that every economic study of Northern Ireland since the war has recognised that the Ulster Government has a mammoth task to undertake due to its high unemployment, often over 10 per cent. overall and 20 per cent. in places like Londonderry, with fewer jobs in declining industries like the linen industry, agriculture and shipbuilding, and the rapidly rising number of insured employees. The achievements of the often maligned Northern Ireland Government in this field will earn a most honourable place in history. More than 80,000 new jobs have been negotiated. A new industrial complex in man-made fibres has been created, wide diversification has been achieved in engineering and electronics, and new sectors in manufacturing industry, such as rubber and paper, have been opened up.
All this has been achieved by the optimism and energy of the Northern Ireland Government coupled with the right inducements, and, as I readily accept, varying degrees of help from London. It was established as long ago as 1932 that Northern Ireland needed special help to create employment because of its economic disadvantages. It was in 1954 under a Conservative Administration in this country, 12 years before investment grants were introduced by the Labour Government in Great Britain, that a Capital Grants Act in Ulster established the regular use of investment grants as a means of attracting new employment to Ulster. Subsequently, a wide range of flexible inducements has been developed, and those required for the next five-year period were accepted by the new Government in this country in June, 1970. They included investment grants for new projects ranging from 45 per cent. to 60 per cent., though I should add the caveat that the White Paper said at the time that these were
subject to any adjustment which might from time to time be required in connection with the task of managing the economy as a whole".


However, while the energy of the Northern Ireland Government is, I believe, undiminished, for the first time since the war there are signs that their optimism is faltering somewhat. The Minister of Development in Northern Ireland said last week that the outlook for jobs and for industrial investment in the Province was at an all-time low, and he went on to describe the situation as "almost grim". I fear that he is a realist. It is true that no major industry has indicated an intention to settle for 18 months. Jobs in new projects so far this year total 1,192, compared with 3,245 in 1968 and 2,491 in 1969.
It is significant that 70 per cent. of all new jobs negotiated this year are in expansions of existing industry. It is interesting to note that those industries already on the spot which know and, at least to some extent, understand the situation have not been deterred by certain events from expansion.
Unemployment is still at the unacceptably high level of 6·8 per cent. overall, and 8·8 per cent. for males. It is higher than a year ago particularly in manufacturing industry. The unemployment rate, sad to say, among men in Londonderry—though it covers a wider area than the name might suggest—is 16 per cent., and in Strabane in the constituency of Mid-Ulster it is 17·3 per cent.
That is bad enough, but there is now an added uncertainty about the level of inducements available both to existing industry and to new projects. It is about them that we must think. I imagine that almost at this moment talks are taking place between the two Governments. I cannot tonight emphasise too strongly how urgent it is that action should follow those talks, and quickly. Otherwise, there will be no movement for an appreciable time on the industrial front, and opportunities may well be lost. We cannot afford to lose a single opportunity at this time.
As I have said, the Minister of Development described the situation as grim, or, to be fair "almost grim". Why is it almost grim? There are two main reasons, one being that the Northern Ireland economy reflects the economy of the United Kingdom as a

whole. When there is a buoyant economy here, the economy of Northern Ireland is buoyant, or relatively so. Unhappily, the converse is true: when things are going badly in the United Kingdom, they go disastrously in Northern Ireland. This is particularly true in the matter of investment, which, as we all know only too well, has been stagnant in the United Kingdom for some time. Undoubtedly, that is an important factor in the difficulties which Northern Ireland faces today.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I understand that the general purposes committee of the Northern Ireland Economic Council has urged the Stormont Government to maintain a policy of investment grants despite the decision taken by the United Kingdom Government. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will exhort his brethren in the Conservative and Unionist Party to change their policy with regard to development areas in Britain?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman had better contain his soul in patience. If he had waited to hear what I have to say, he would probably not have bothered to make that intervention. He sometimes makes valuable observations, but that was not one of his better efforts.
I was dealing with the reasons why I regarded the situation as almost grim, and I had mentioned the way that one economy affects the other.
The second and, in my view, principal reason must be the recent civil unrest in Northern Ireland, which has without question discouraged those who might have brought new projects and new employment to Ulster. We have to face that. It is vital—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say this tonight—to say, and say loudly, that only a very small proportion of the working force of the Province has been affected in any way by the disturbances, even when they were at their worst. It is also important to say that the incidents have been almost entirely confined to a few square miles.
From some of the things that have been said and written in this country, one might be led to believe that Ulster


was engulfed in a mini-religious war affecting the whole Province. This is far from the facts. In the interests of the unemployed, it is an impression which should be dispelled at once.
Long before the disturbances of 1968, I remember saying in this House that the shortage of employment in Northern Ireland was the tinder out of which community tension could be fanned into flame all too easily. That was long before 1968. That was not then, and is not now, to suggest that full employment had ever been the whole answer to the problems which faced Ulster—it is no use pretending that it is—but a reduction in the level of unemployment at this time would certainly go a long way to help.
Consultants who drew up the development programme for 1970–75 indicated that Ulster needed 8,000 jobs a year for the next five years if any inroads were to be made on the underlying level of unemployment. The sad fact is that now, in 1970, it looks as though we may barely reach 6,000. No wonder the situation is regarded by responsible figures in Northern Ireland as "almost grim".
What we really need—what we have always needed but what we need a little bit more now—is a range of inducements for new projects at least as attractive in cash terms as the present arrangement. In calculating what the inducements should be, I trust that the Treasury in this country will bear in mind that it is as important to take into account the differential with the development areas as it is to measure the differential with the incentives offered by the Republic of Ireland.
This is a very important, and increasingly important, matter—heaven knows, we hear enough about it sometimes in this House, and Stormont hears more about it—having regard to the particular difficulty in obtaining employment for the western counties of Ulster, about which I happen to know a good deal and where we realise that the problem is of exceptional severity. The western counties are very close to the Republic.
The new policies that were outlined for development areas by one of my right hon. Friends the other day indicated that greater use was likely to be made of

operational grants linked to employment and infrastructure grants. These operational grants are already used in Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Commerce. The Government here must, therefore, be asked—and I ask them tonight—to consider to what extent these new policies go at least some way, if not all the way, to closing the gap between Ulster and the development areas. It would be unfortunate if it were so.
I must speak rather more warmly of certain measures which, in my own way, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have welcomed as being beneficial, I hope, in the long run to the United Kingdom as a whole. Among those recent measures which will be most welcome is the extension of investment allowances to the services sector in Northern Ireland, which has suffered so badly from selective employment tax.
I assure the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) that I have not become any sort of crypto-Socialist and I am not by inclination a devotee of investment grants. Neither am I a believer in featherbedding dying ducks, or any other mixed metaphor of that kind. It must, however, be recognised that investment grants or an alternative to them are absolutely vital at this time to attract new industries to Northern Ireland. They have been in active use there for sixteen years, and to abandon them at this moment without an equivalent attraction would be to court disaster.
I think also that greater consideration has to be given to the assistance available to existing industry wishing to reequip and modernise. There are in Ulster a great many firms which need the help of investment grants if they are to remain in business, and as things stand in Ulster we simply cannot afford to lose a single job there. If it gives the hon. Member for Cardigan any pleasure I will quote what the general purposes committee of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, as he has referred to it, said last week:
There are many employers for whom the loss of investment grants alone could create a serious cash problem even with free depreciation for firms earning profits.
I must say one word about hotels—the tourist industry in general, but hotels especially—because here in particular


there is considerable nervousness being felt about the application of the United Kingdom Government's new policies for the tourist industry. This industry has suffered pretty grievously from the unrest of the past two years. It is capable of very great expansion, perhaps more than any other industry in Northern Ireland. At present the standard of accommodation provided in holiday areas in my constituency could be improved. I hope that is a tactful way of putting it. I am not saying that some of it is not very good, but it could be improved, just as that in Donegal across the Border could be improved, and I know that many of my constituents are looking forward anxiously to seeing that grants to hotels are continued in some form.
I must say a word in regard to military bases, because, as my hon. Friend knows, the closing of the Ballykelly R.A.F. station in 1971 and, most recently, H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" strike severe blows at Northern Ireland. There is the commitment of the British Army in Northern Ireland at present, but it could have an enormous economic and psychological effect if there were some defence establishment which could be sent over to Ulster. I would not make that suggestion if I did not think it possible from the defence point of view that that might well be feasible, and if it is feasible, and feasible for Ballykelly, then I hope that an imaginative plan put forward by a certain county council is kept in mind by the Government, and I hope that they will look at it with sympathy, because the Ministry of Defence, as it was under the last Government, does owe some retribution for what it did about the closing of Ballykelly. The people in that area were led to believe that the base was to remain open, and a lot of money was spent locally in that belief, and the people were led to that belief by the Ministry of Defence.
Of course, the locating of a major Government Department or enterprise in Ulster would be a considerable step forward.
I do not know whether consideration has been given lately to a car assembly plant. That might be the debut of the steel industry in Northern Ireland, but we shall hear what the Minister has to say, if anything, about that.
In agriculture, the new measures pose a certain threat to the industry in Northern Ireland which still employs 10 per cent. or slightly more of the Province's labour force. The Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland estimates that the ending of the cheap welfare milk and free school milk for those aged over 7 will mean a loss of 4 million gallons a year in milk supplies, and that is bound to depress the overall return for milk, which is already 6d. a gallon lower there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is a situation in which the Ulster dairy farmer has to fight against the higher cost of feedingstuffs and the prospect of a lower return on milk. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that 10,000 tons of milk products were imported into Northern Ireland from the Republic in 1969, representing £2·8 million in value. The largest item was butter, which for various reasons, is being sold cheaper on the Northern Ireland market, making it uneconomical for the Ulster farmer to produce. Certainly, an immediate levy on milk products would greatly alleviate what is a very unsatisfactory situation. It would help to make the Northern Ireland farmers a good deal happier about the whole concept of the support system if they knew that levies on milk products were to be introduced.
Most of the problems about which I have been speaking are in some way the legacies of actions of United Kingdom Governments long ago, and the measures which are needed now are proportionately no greater than those required by some other areas. I know that I am asking for much, and I know it will be said that I am asking at the wrong time. It is always the wrong time, but for Northern Ireland in a sphere wider than that of the economy it may be that it is a "make or break" time. Community peace in the future certainly does not depend wholly upon great economic prosperity—not while we have the presence of those determined to disrupt it for their own ends—but a higher employment level would certainly help towards greater harmony.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot give way. I have not the time.
There has been much talk in another context of direct rule. I am not tonight advocating that, but I sometimes speculate whether, had that form of government existed, involving direct responsibility over the years, any Government of any complexion in this country could have allowed to continue in any part of this kingdom an unemployment rate of between 6 and 8 per cent.
I ask my hon. Friend tonight whether he can give us some form of reassurance.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I hope my hon. Friend will answer the points I have raised and say something which will alleviate the anxiety which is deeply felt in many parts of Northern Ireland.

Miss Devlin: rose—

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue before the House at this time. He said that he thought it might be the wrong time to do it, but I would not say so at all, and I congratulate him upon his timing.
The Government have already announced their new policies for public spending and investment incentives for Great Britain in two White Papers. Discussions are now taking place with the Northern Ireland Government about the matters for which they are responsible. We here at Westminster are in no doubt as to the particular economic problems which face Northern Ireland.
A great deal is said about Northern Ireland, and no small part of it is nonsense. It is not easy for those living outside to get a balanced picture of what is happening. Many people this year have thought of the whole population as having to survive riots, searches, the discharge of smoke, and so on. The truth is that the great majority, even of those living in Northern Ireland, would be unaware of most of the incidents were it not for the Press and the television.
I am sure that the House will wish to pay tribute to the considerable efforts of the Northern Ireland Government to promote new industry in the Province. This, one must admit, is against a background of certain industries in decline, a constant

drift of labour from the land, and a general and often mistaken belief that Northern Ireland's geographical disadvantages, such as distance from the market, cannot be offset by its undoubted advantages. The Northern Ireland Government's efforts have had a good measure of success in the past, attracting many firms from overseas. It is the aim of the United Kingdom Government to enable the Northern Ireland Government to continue this work.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Sharples: There is not time. I am sorry; I cannot give way.
We have already shown this by our agreement in June of this year, immediately upon taking office, to the addition of £75 million to anticipated expenditure in Northern Ireland on development during the next five years.
Partly as a result of the measures contained in the new development plan, partly as a result of those which the previous Government agreed to last October and partly as a result of earlier measures, the Northern Ireland Government have been able to offer to new and expanding industry greater inducements than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Without these differential advantages Northern Ireland's economic position would be much worse than it is today. Discussions are now in progress between the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Government about the most suitable financial inducements for Northern Ireland to offer in the light of the recent Government proposals to rely on investment allowances rather than investment grants. The House will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of these discussions, but it may be helpful if I indicate some of the guidelines we are following.
First, we recognise that there is a need for Northern Ireland to retain a lead in the level of investment incentives. Secondly, it would not be right for Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals about investment allowances without at the same time making changes in its other industrial incentives. Thirdly, we must take into account the concept of parity which has grown up in dealings between the two Governments. As the House will know, this requires that the citizens of


Northern Ireland should enjoy the same standard of services as the citizens of Great Britain so long as the rates of taxation, both transferred and reserved, are the same in both places. Fourthly, at a time when public expenditure in Great Britain is being carefully pruned, we think it right to ask the Northern Ireland Government to have a further look at their own programmes.
These are the principles which are guiding our approach to the discussions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Even accepting the superficial validity of the Minister's arguments, is it not a fact that very many firms which went to Northern Ireland did not make a profit for the first few years and, therefore, do not gain a penny's benefit from the investment allowances?

Mr. Sharples: I must stick to what I have been saying. Discussions are going on between the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Government, and it would be improper, while those discussions are taking place, for me to go further than I have gone in outlining the broad principles which guide our thinking.
I want to say a few words about today's situation. It is fair to say that there are very encouraging factors about the economy of Northern Ireland. The gross domestic product increased by over 45 per cent. between 1963 and 1968 while that for the United Kingdom as a whole increased by 35 per cent. Between 1960 and 1968 the index of manufacturing production rose by 46 per cent. in Northern Ireland compared with 24 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Jones Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. Sharples: I am sorry; I cannot give way.
Investment by manufacturing industry is increasing rapidly at a time when relatively little increase has occurred on this side of the Irish Sea. Northern Ireland is a go-ahead place, and I can understand why. The Northern Ireland authorities go to great pains to attract and encourage industry to settle and expand there. The amenities offered by the beautiful unspoiled countryside are ex-

cellent. The reserves of good labour are one of Northern Ireland's greatest assets.
But there is another side to the picture. Total unemployment stands at 6·8 per cent.—nearly three times the Great Britain average. There are specific concentrations of unemployment, too—Belfast, where there are 11,000 people out of work, Londonderry and Newry, where the male rate of unemployment is about 16 and 18 per cent. and the number of unoccupied males alone is more than 2,700 and 2,000 respectively. These are facts which we must recognise. It would be foolish to pretend that there are any easy solutions.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points and I only wish I had time to reply to them. He raised particularly the situation of the tourist industry, including the hotel position, the situation of agriculture and the situation relating to the Ballykelly airport. With regard to Ballykelly I can say that the Ministry of Defence is at present sympathetic to the civil use of the airport, and its future is being considered by the Northern Ireland Government with the local authorities concerned. I cannot go further than that at the moment.
My hon. Friend has also raised certain points in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand a reply is on its way to him, if he has not already received it. He also referred to the resolution made last week by the general purposes committee of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I assure him that it is receiving careful consideration.
In the two or three minutes that remain to me, I want to say something about one matter that was touched upon by my hon. Friend, and that is the effect of disorders on the economy of Northern Ireland. I have mentioned the distorted impression held by many people outside Northern Ireland. I do not want to be over-optimistic and it would be a mistake to be so, but I am sure the House will welcome the real improvement which I think it is fair to say has taken place in recent months. We must, none the less, recognise that there are those criminal elements who appear to have a vested interest in creating trouble. They are the real enemies of full employment in


Northern Ireland. They are the main deterrent to investment, without which—

Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister in this House to make a statement which is in contradiction to the actual facts of trade and exports in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): No point of order whatever arises on that.

Mr. Sharples: I believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ire-land—

Miss Devlin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sharples: —want no part of these troubles. The time has now come for all those who believe in the future of Northern Ireland to help the police in putting these criminals behind bars, where they belong. At the same time, I ask industrialists who are thinking of placing orders or setting up firms in Northern

Ireland to look at the picture for themselves. They will not in any way be disappointed by what Northern Ireland has to offer.
This has been a useful debate. I am only sorry that it has been so short. It is difficult in a short debate of this kind to reply to a very great number of detailed points which have been raised by my hon. Friends, points to which I certainly would have wished to reply had I been able to do so. I should like to have been able to reply to his points about agriculture, and to his important points about the tourist industry. I appreciate very much the importance of the growing tourist industry to Northern Ireland—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.